# A Young Woman Stoned for Adultery



## Mrs. M.

Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.

What would Jesus do?

It is written:

....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 8:7-11

Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!

The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.

What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.

My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.

I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.

As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.

God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?

He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Micah 6:8

The best prayer?
Begins with......  God fix me first.


____________
Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.


----------



## Pogo

Mrs. M. said:


> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.



It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?

Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

The law of the land.  You know.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Would that I could call them simply "misguided"; but let's call it what it really is; MURDER. Islam proudly produces and facilitates MURDERERS.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?



This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.


----------



## skye

they do that all the time.

that's their bread and butter

all the time


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> The law of the land.  You know.



Law  

Dude, it didn't even matter if she was guilty. Once they decided, that's all she wrote. For what it's worth though; a part of me gets what you're saying.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

*THIS IS SHARIA LAW.*


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
Click to expand...


Here's your link, a-hole.

Watch the video for yourself.

Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
Click to expand...


No, it's an *essential *point.
If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?

Open wide, Dickhead.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
Click to expand...


Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's your link, a-hole.
> 
> Watch the video for yourself.
> 
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
Click to expand...


Thanks Dickbag but this IS the OP's job, and there's nothing in the world you can do to make that not true, so suck it.

Assuming this is the same event to which the OP referred, from this link:

>> Joyenda, one of only two female governors in Afghanistan, said Rokhsahana's family had married her off against her will before she was caught while eloping with another man her age.

The man was let off with a lashing, Joyenda's spokesman said. <<​
As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.

Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.

You're welcome.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
Click to expand...


Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.

That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.

So bite me.


----------



## Indeependent

Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
Click to expand...


Yawn, d-bag.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.



Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
Click to expand...


Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??

Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.

How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?

>> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?

You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.

-- or would that hit too close to home?


----------



## Moonglow

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
Click to expand...

Next he will tell you hajib is a Muslim culture construct


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Next he will tell you hajib is a Muslim culture construct
Click to expand...


  Let him walk into it.  It's kinda fun playing "spot the ignoramus".  This one is such a cat toy that way.


----------



## DarkFury

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
Click to expand...

*I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*


----------



## Pogo

DarkFury said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
Click to expand...


And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.

Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.

Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.


----------



## Gracie

The Stoning Of Soraya. Netflix. Not streamed, gotta get the cd mailed to you. Based on a true story..just like the one in the OP. But Soraya was stoned because her husband wanted to marry a 13 year old and couldn't unless he could divorce his wife. Village said he had to have a good reason. So he and one of his friends in the village set her up. He would not support her or their children and stayed elsewhere...and when no money was available for food, she took a job with a man who lost his wife and needed a housekeeper. Then the set up was done and all he had to do was accuse her of sleeping with her employer. The employer said none of it was true, but nobody cared to listen to him. The friends of Sorayas husband got the villagers riled up that she was committing adultry and she was to be stoned as punishment. So..they did. And the husband also forced the children to throw stones as well. Until she was a bloody pulpy dead mess. After her death...he went to his wannabe child bride to marry her, but he took too long murdering his wife and she was married to someone else. So he murdered his wife for nothing.
The movie was explicit. Graphic. Horrifying to watch. And it happens all the time over there.

Fuck that shithole and all the scumbags in it.


----------



## DarkFury

Pogo said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
Click to expand...

*An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *


----------



## Pogo

DarkFury said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's an *essential *point.
> If I tell you green glob men are invading from Pluto right now, but I don't have a link --- are you gonna believe me?   You're willing to swallow whatever your told with no basis whatsoever?
> 
> Open wide, Dickhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
Click to expand...


The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.

I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.


----------



## Gracie

The Stoning of Soraya M. Trailer - IMDb


----------



## Gracie

You guys can bicker all you want about links, the OP talking about Jesus, the sky being blue, the sea being salty....it won't change the fact that Stoning is Sharia Law and it happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME over there.


----------



## Pogo

Gracie said:


> The Stoning of Soraya M. Trailer - IMDb



Actually it's right here.  No need to pay Netflix.

​Oops -- I see the subtitles are kinda halfway cut off.


----------



## Pogo

Gracie said:


> You guys can bicker all you want about links, the OP talking about Jesus, the sky being blue, the sea being salty....it won't change the fact that Stoning is Sharia Law and it happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME over there.



It happens but it isn't Sharia. It isn't even Islamic.

For proof of that look no further than the bible reference in the OP, referring to the woman about to be stoned for adultery.  That was centuries before Islam even *existed.*

It isn't Jewish either, or Christian or Hindu or Sikh.  It simply _isn't part of religion._
I don't know what's not clear about that.

It's kind of like a visitor coming to this country for the first time, looking around a while and then concluding that Christianity invented the Christmas Tree and the Easter Bunny.  Those are way older too.


----------



## Gracie

Pogo said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Stoning of Soraya M. Trailer - IMDb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's right here.  No need to pay Netflix.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Get your popcorn then and watch it. Then tell me it isn't religion based.
And while watching, pretend you are Soraya. WATCH IT. Then come talk about it if it suits you.

Personally....I need to keep my BP down so I doubt I return to this thread. It pisses me off. AFUCKINGLOT!


----------



## Pogo

Gracie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Stoning of Soraya M. Trailer - IMDb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's right here.  No need to pay Netflix.
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get your popcorn then and watch it. Then tell me it isn't religion based.
> And while watching, pretend you are Soraya. WATCH IT. Then come talk about it if it suits you.
> 
> Personally....I need to keep my BP down so I doubt I return to this thread. It pisses me off. AFUCKINGLOT!
Click to expand...


I hear ya sis, pissed me off too.  I've corrected this shit over and over and over.  It's playing whack-a-mole with da bigots.


----------



## turtledude

different country-but  you do sort of wished someone could have come over that mob in an attack fighter  and say lay a few WP shells on the stoners or better yet someone with a Barrett 50 800 meters out start exploding the heads of the scumbags


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.








The Eagle says these bastards should be taken out and stoned themselves.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## fanger

America is so much more civilized, they use a lethal injection or a firing squad when they carry out the death penalty


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
Click to expand...


I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, shut the fuck up. You do what you do to avoid the issue; and you do this all the time. Nobody else doubted the authenticity of the story. But you have to act like this is an f'ing newspaper that needs to be sourced. Grow the fuck up and stop stifling adult convo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
Click to expand...


You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.


----------



## fanger

We dont have the Death penalty here, you should try it


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".

The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.

Linear time, vacuum-brain.

Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.




TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suck my dick, shit-for-brains.  I wanted a source for the same reason anyone wants a source -- because without it the whole thing's hearsay.  And without that we have no reference and no context, as you just gave me above.  You can't address an issue without some kind of basis in reality, and hell the fuck no I'm not going to take the word of a brand new poster with a total of two posts that this is a legitimate story.  If you do, you're a retard.
> 
> That's the way the world of reality works, child, like it or lump it.  And all you do by whining about this is make yourself look even fucking stupider than you already do.
> 
> So bite me.
> 
> 
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
Click to expand...


Hey Gasbag ----

36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.

I don't have a link though.

You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?

Better run, dumbass.


----------



## Pogo

fanger said:


> America is so much more civilized, they use a lethal injection or a firing squad when they carry out the death penalty



Aren't we still toasting people with a spaghetti colander on their head?  

The comparison is worthy; the only difference is we formalize the process to where it has to be declared by a guy holding a hammer wearing a black dress.  Then we do it indoors so there are no rainouts.  That's because we smart.

Actually they have the same kind of proxy judges in India, where they're called a khap panchayat.  I don't know that they wear black dresses and carry hammers though.

This massive deflection to a cherrypicked religion as causation for this monstrosity completely --- and conveniently --- takes the viewer's eye off the ball of the root cause, which is hyperpatriarchy.  Pointing a finger at those that might be coincident with Islam turns a blind eye to, and therefore condemns to death, those victims of the same cultural artifact that might be coincident with Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianism, or none of the above.  And this in turn ensures that the barbarity continues.  Attacking a symptom instead of a disease tends to work that way.

Attributing "honor killing" to "Islam" is like attributing the existence of the Grand Canyon to the government of Arizona.  It completely ignores which came before the other.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I really hate to break this to you, okay maybe not. But OP-ED means OPINE-EDITORIAL and those do NOT require links. You cannot link a thought.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I hate to break it to _you _Pinko but the OP starts with a reference to an event with no link, and therefore no basis, and therefore no definition.  Without a definition it cannot serve as a basis.
> 
> Moreover that citation contained an analysis (religion as causation) which I suspected was erroneous, and now with Gasbag's link that erronity has been confirmed.
> 
> Low hangin' fruit.  Yum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
Click to expand...


Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:



TheGreatGatsby said:


> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.



--- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:



TheGreatGatsby said:


> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.



-- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.

Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?

Dumb fuck.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it. 
Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
Click to expand...


So, this thread is about Jews stoning women 2,000 years ago?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *An OP-ED does not require being confirmed. Only spoken/written. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry; but how many Jews are stoning people these days? Oh, you'd rather talk about issues that don't matter and aren't pertinent to modern day reality. Got it.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> the story in the NT has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.



Again --- Constantine wouldn't even be BORN for another 250 years.  Linear time striketh again.



irosie91 said:


> However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law (or was) for both men and women.



Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then? 



irosie91 said:


> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---



This wouldn't be an official "execution" --- it's mob mentality.  Public vigilantism.  Same as lynching in our own culture.



irosie91 said:


> It could have been a mob lynching


It IS mob lynching.  Both then and now.



irosie91 said:


> the story is not history. The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a "parable" -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.



Doesn't matter whether it's historically factual or not.  The fact that _there's a reference to it_ means _the setting would have been understood by its audience.   _The NT could not have described an electrocution --- wouldn't have meant anything in its time.  Stoning however already existed so there was no need to explain what it meant.

Matter of fact when some Islamophobe dredges up such a story and trots it out as a pseudoexmple of "Islam" or "Sharia" --- we don't need an explanation of what "stoning" means because --- *we all already learned about it from the Bible*.  From an even written down centuries before there was any such thing as "Islam".


----------



## irosie91

TheGreatGatsby said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, this thread is about Jews stoning women 2,000 years ago?
Click to expand...


it seems to have DEVOLVED into the realm of a discussion on who stoned
whom first which is sometimes considered something like   "which
religion invented it"     ------sorta like arguments over   "who invented sliced
bread"      Then it gets worse-------if the religion that does it now------DID NOT
INVENT IT------then it has nothing to do with the religious law or custom that prescribes it.        I have no idea what religion invented the electric chair but
I have been told that it was a French physician who invented the GUILLOTINE
(spelling?)      I am a jew and do not take credit for either the Guillotine
or stoning or circumcision of either gender------not even for bagels.   There is
no history of jews stoning women 2000 years ago-----accusations of adultery
were handled in an entirely different manner.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again --- Constantine wouldn't even be BORN for another 250 years.  Linear time striketh again.
> 
> rosie >>>  the council of Nicea did its thing in 325 AD---the NT ----
> the book attributed to  "john"    is of unknown authorship----both
> time and person.    john seems to be  John Doe      it is not
> john the Baptist------ie that john is probably a pen name for
> a whole bunch of unknown authors
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However ---stoning is a method of execution in jewish law (or was) for both men and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be an official "execution" --- it's mob mentality.  Public vigilantism.  Same as lynching in our own culture.
> 
> rosie >>  true-----the NT describes it as an execution by Sanhedrin order------despite
> the fact that the Sanhedrin could not issue such an order according to the NT.
> I am engaging in sophistry to explain away that contradiction
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS mob lynching.  Both then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story is not history. The nicest thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a "parable" -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether it's historical or not.  The fact that _there's a reference to it_ means _the setting would have been understood by its audience.   _The NT could not have described an electrocution --- wouldn't have meant anything in its time.  Stoning however already existed so there was no need to explain what it meant.
> 
> rosie>>     true -----the audience which read the NT  was the holy roman empire
> persons -----after 325 AD
> 
> Matter of fact when some Islamophobe dredges up such a story and trots it out as a pseudoexmple of "Islam" or "Sharia" --- we don't need an explanation of what "stoning" means because --- *we all already learned about it from the Bible*.  From an even written down centuries before there was any such thing as "Islam".
Click to expand...


rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code
of islam          I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places
it existed.      Interestingly ---it was pretty much dropped from jewish jurisprudence
at the time Jesus lived except for theoretical discussions  <<< that means Talmud.
I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout
the whole Levant long before Moses was born


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again --- Constantine wouldn't even be BORN for another 250 years.  Linear time striketh again.
> 
> rosie >>>  the council of Nicea did its thing in 325 AD---the NT ----
> the book attributed to  "john"    is of unknown authorship----both
> time and person.    john seems to be  John Doe      it is not
> john the Baptist------ie that john is probably a pen name for
> a whole bunch of unknown authors
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However ---stoning is a method of execution in jewish law (or was) for both men and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be an official "execution" --- it's mob mentality.  Public vigilantism.  Same as lynching in our own culture.
> 
> rosie >>  true-----the NT describes it as an execution by Sanhedrin order------despite
> the fact that the Sanhedrin could not issue such an order according to the NT.
> I am engaging in sophistry to explain away that contradiction
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS mob lynching.  Both then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story is not history. The nicest thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a "parable" -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether it's historical or not.  The fact that _there's a reference to it_ means _the setting would have been understood by its audience.   _The NT could not have described an electrocution --- wouldn't have meant anything in its time.  Stoning however already existed so there was no need to explain what it meant.
> 
> rosie>>     true -----the audience which read the NT  was the holy roman empire
> persons -----after 325 AD
> 
> Matter of fact when some Islamophobe dredges up such a story and trots it out as a pseudoexmple of "Islam" or "Sharia" --- we don't need an explanation of what "stoning" means because --- *we all already learned about it from the Bible*.  From an even written down centuries before there was any such thing as "Islam".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code
> of islam          I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places
> it existed.      Interestingly ---it was pretty much dropped from jewish jurisprudence
> at the time Jesus lived except for theoretical discussions  <<< that means Talmud.
> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout
> the whole Levant long before Moses was born
Click to expand...


You've completely polluted the exchange by inserting your own passages into my posts.

I shall try to extricate a few choice morsels:



> (Me) Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.



So you cannot document your assertion, and therefore it fails.




> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code of islam [sic]



Once again, as above ---- care to show us where that is in the Qu'ran?



> I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places it existed.



I do, because I took the trouble to find out.  And it's not a secret.  I've already linked and posted that.




> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout the whole Levant long before Moses was born



Correct, and ergo way before Mohammad was born as well.  Which puts it outside the creation of Judaism, Islam, or any other religion.  It was (and still is) a _social _construct, having everything to do with what that community's traditions regard as "honor" and "status" within the community.  Which have nothing to do with religions.

I should add that if your prior reference to the "fingerprints of Constantine" refers to the heavy NT editing session going on at the Council of Nicea, that is a fair point to which I am sympathetic, so I grant you that.  

But that *still *remains three centuries before Mohammad, meaning that Constantine's editors could not have been describing a ritual that would not exist until several centuries into the then-future.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again --- Constantine wouldn't even be BORN for another 250 years.  Linear time striketh again.
> 
> rosie >>>  the council of Nicea did its thing in 325 AD---the NT ----
> the book attributed to  "john"    is of unknown authorship----both
> time and person.    john seems to be  John Doe      it is not
> john the Baptist------ie that john is probably a pen name for
> a whole bunch of unknown authors
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However ---stoning is a method of execution in jewish law (or was) for both men and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be an official "execution" --- it's mob mentality.  Public vigilantism.  Same as lynching in our own culture.
> 
> rosie >>  true-----the NT describes it as an execution by Sanhedrin order------despite
> the fact that the Sanhedrin could not issue such an order according to the NT.
> I am engaging in sophistry to explain away that contradiction
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS mob lynching.  Both then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story is not history. The nicest thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a "parable" -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether it's historical or not.  The fact that _there's a reference to it_ means _the setting would have been understood by its audience.   _The NT could not have described an electrocution --- wouldn't have meant anything in its time.  Stoning however already existed so there was no need to explain what it meant.
> 
> rosie>>     true -----the audience which read the NT  was the holy roman empire
> persons -----after 325 AD
> 
> Matter of fact when some Islamophobe dredges up such a story and trots it out as a pseudoexmple of "Islam" or "Sharia" --- we don't need an explanation of what "stoning" means because --- *we all already learned about it from the Bible*.  From an even written down centuries before there was any such thing as "Islam".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code
> of islam          I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places
> it existed.      Interestingly ---it was pretty much dropped from jewish jurisprudence
> at the time Jesus lived except for theoretical discussions  <<< that means Talmud.
> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout
> the whole Levant long before Moses was born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've completely polluted the exchange by inserting your own passages into my posts.
> 
> I shall try to extricate a few choice morsels:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Me) Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you cannot document your assertion, and therefore it fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code of islam [sic]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, as above ---- care to show us where that is in the Qu'ran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places it existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do, because I took the trouble to find out.  And it's not a secret.  I've already linked and posted that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout the whole Levant long before Moses was born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, and ergo way before Mohammad was born as well.  Which puts it outside the creation of Judaism, Islam, or any other religion.  It was (and still is) a _social _construct, having everything to do with what that community's traditions regard as "honor" and "status" within the community.  Which have nothing to do with religions.
Click to expand...


I made the fact that I inserted very clear-------Nothing could  render your posts
MORE polluted than they are already.      Your assertion that stoning adulterers
has nothing to do with ISLAM  is idiotic------Shariah law IS ISLAM just as
Torah/Talmudic law IS  Judaism        and  CANON LAW  is Catholicism


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Shariah law IS ISLAM just as
> Torah/Talmudic law IS Judaism and CANON LAW is Catholicism



Too bad you can't quote any of those actually prescribing stoning for adultery then.  Because then you might actually have a point.



irosie91 said:


> Your assertion that stoning adulterers has nothing to do with ISLAM is idiotic



No, it's called linear time.  I can't just walk up to Mount Mitchell and go "hey, I invented this mountain".  Why can't I do that?  Because that mountain was there thousands of years before I was, that's why.

Go back to part 1 here; lather, rinse , repeat.


----------



## turtledude

fanger said:


> We dont have the Death penalty here, you should try it



we really don' t either.  which is why I want honest people packing heat.  fight crime-shoot back


----------



## Wildman

Pogo said:


> How do we know you didn't just make this up?



now we all know what makes you the forums biggest


----------



## Wildman

Pogo said:


> Suck my dick,



if you had one it would be an object for mocroscopic viewing!!

 .........


----------



## Damaged Eagle

fanger said:


> America is so much more civilized, they use a lethal injection or a firing squad when they carry out the death penalty







Civilized behavior is highly overrated. Let the punishment match the injustice. You want the people who stoned the woman to go quickly and almost painlessly? Then drop a ten ton stone on top of each of them.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shariah law IS ISLAM just as
> Torah/Talmudic law IS Judaism and CANON LAW is Catholicism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you can't quote any of those actually prescribing stoning for adultery then.  Because then you might actually have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that stoning adulterers has nothing to do with ISLAM is idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's called linear time.  I can't just walk up to Mount Mitchell and go "hey, I invented this mountain".  Why can't I do that?  Because that mountain was there thousands of years before I was, that's why.
> 
> Go back to part 1 here; lather, rinse , repeat.
Click to expand...


your arguments are idiotic--------since execution of murderers was not INVENTED
by Tom Paine------it has nothing to do with USA jurisprudence.     Keep on with your
stupidity-------since the catholics church did not invent paper------bibles in book form have nothing to do with  religion


----------



## Dante

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


I resisted but now I must speak...

I don't care. There is so much going on locally that deserves your attention that all 
i can think is that you willfully ignore,...


... never mind


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again --- Constantine wouldn't even be BORN for another 250 years.  Linear time striketh again.
> 
> rosie >>>  the council of Nicea did its thing in 325 AD---the NT ----
> the book attributed to  "john"    is of unknown authorship----both
> time and person.    john seems to be  John Doe      it is not
> john the Baptist------ie that john is probably a pen name for
> a whole bunch of unknown authors
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However ---stoning is a method of execution in jewish law (or was) for both men and women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be an official "execution" --- it's mob mentality.  Public vigilantism.  Same as lynching in our own culture.
> 
> rosie >>  true-----the NT describes it as an execution by Sanhedrin order------despite
> the fact that the Sanhedrin could not issue such an order according to the NT.
> I am engaging in sophistry to explain away that contradiction
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS mob lynching.  Both then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story is not history. The nicest thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a "parable" -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter whether it's historical or not.  The fact that _there's a reference to it_ means _the setting would have been understood by its audience.   _The NT could not have described an electrocution --- wouldn't have meant anything in its time.  Stoning however already existed so there was no need to explain what it meant.
> 
> rosie>>     true -----the audience which read the NT  was the holy roman empire
> persons -----after 325 AD
> 
> Matter of fact when some Islamophobe dredges up such a story and trots it out as a pseudoexmple of "Islam" or "Sharia" --- we don't need an explanation of what "stoning" means because --- *we all already learned about it from the Bible*.  From an even written down centuries before there was any such thing as "Islam".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code
> of islam          I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places
> it existed.      Interestingly ---it was pretty much dropped from jewish jurisprudence
> at the time Jesus lived except for theoretical discussions  <<< that means Talmud.
> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout
> the whole Levant long before Moses was born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've completely polluted the exchange by inserting your own passages into my posts.
> 
> I shall try to extricate a few choice morsels:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Me) Really.  Care to quote where the Torah prescribes stoning then?
> rosie   >>no------I do not do chapter and verse-----any person who
> read the book ----read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you cannot document your assertion, and therefore it fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rosie>>   true -----from the OT.       It was adopted as part of the legal code of islam [sic]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, as above ---- care to show us where that is in the Qu'ran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea if it existed already in arabia or in what other places it existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do, because I took the trouble to find out.  And it's not a secret.  I've already linked and posted that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that stoning was a means of execution in arabia and even thruout the whole Levant long before Moses was born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, and ergo way before Mohammad was born as well.  Which puts it outside the creation of Judaism, Islam, or any other religion.  It was (and still is) a _social _construct, having everything to do with what that community's traditions regard as "honor" and "status" within the community.  Which have nothing to do with religions.
> 
> I should add that if your prior reference to the "fingerprints of Constantine" refers to the heavy NT editing session going on at the Council of Nicea, that is a fair point to which I am sympathetic, so I grant you that.
> 
> But that *still *remains three centuries before Mohammad, meaning that Constantine's editors could not have been describing a ritual that would not exist until several centuries into the then-future.
Click to expand...


you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
' if muhummad did not invent stoning people,  then it is not part of shariah law---which ---btw----according to Islamic scholars is  DIVINELY ORDAINED BY WHAT-HIS-NAME   up there in Jannah------divine and eternal


----------



## CremeBrulee

If the stoning was "not of god" why is that form of punishment prescribed for so many offenses in the Bible?  It seems that particular punishment is justified in all 3 major monotheistic religions.


----------



## irosie91

CremeBrulee said:


> If the stoning was "not of god" why is that form of punishment prescribed for so many offenses in the Bible?  It seems that particular punishment is justified in all 3 major monotheistic religions.



"...of god"   ????      well-----actually it does not say that it is  "of god"   in the OT,  NT,
or koran.     When death is prescribed by heaven -----people are supposed to just
drop dead   (or get very sick or get hit with lightening)    At least that is the  OT form
of execution  "of G-d"        In the stone age------stones were just about all they had
for a court decree.    Lethal injection has not yet been invented


----------



## irosie91

turtledude said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont have the Death penalty here, you should try it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we really don' t either.  which is why I want honest people packing heat.  fight crime-shoot back
Click to expand...


what about hunting rifles?      In the state in which I grew up REAL MEN----
had fishing rods and hunting rifles-------------they could reel in a five ounce
little wiggly thing-------and they could shoot a bear or a squirrel for lunch


----------



## CremeBrulee

irosie91 said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the stoning was "not of god" why is that form of punishment prescribed for so many offenses in the Bible?  It seems that particular punishment is justified in all 3 major monotheistic religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...of god"   ????      well-----actually it does not say that it is  "of god"   in the OT,  NT,
> or koran.     When death is prescribed by heaven -----people are supposed to just
> drop dead   (or get very sick or get hit with lightening)    At least that is the  OT form
> of execution  "of G-d"        In the stone age------stones were just about all they had
> for a court decree.    Lethal injection has not yet been invented
Click to expand...

I was quoting the op-ed.  Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam were around in the Stone Age either.  Did you mean Bronze Age? Regardless, people still had weapons other than stones.  Maybe the stones were more convenient.  It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture. I believe it's called syncretism.


----------



## irosie91

CremeBrulee said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the stoning was "not of god" why is that form of punishment prescribed for so many offenses in the Bible?  It seems that particular punishment is justified in all 3 major monotheistic religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...of god"   ????      well-----actually it does not say that it is  "of god"   in the OT,  NT,
> or koran.     When death is prescribed by heaven -----people are supposed to just
> drop dead   (or get very sick or get hit with lightening)    At least that is the  OT form
> of execution  "of G-d"        In the stone age------stones were just about all they had
> for a court decree.    Lethal injection has not yet been invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was quoting the op-ed.  Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam were around in the Stone Age either.  Did you mean Bronze Age? Regardless, people still had weapons other than stones.  Maybe the stones were more convenient.  It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture. I believe it's called syncretism.
Click to expand...


no----I meant stone age.     Even in the Bronze age----stones were cheaper and
available.    In the bronze age----Bronze was a big deal.      Strangulation is also
mentioned in  the Talmud.     I am not sure how it was done or if it was done. 
I am not sure that 'syncretism' fits the situation.    I think syncretism is used to describe a merging of ideas ------elegant stuff-----I would assume that fusion
cuisine can be described as syncretism--------Korean flavored tacos.     How
to kill a person seems to me to not be an activity  MERGEABLE.     Systems
of Jurisprudence could be mergeable      My impression is that shariah jurisprudence is a syncresis of the code of hummarabi, some tribal stuff in ancient
arabia and bits and pieces of judeo/Christian stuff


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
> ' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law



You really want to play this degree of stupid?
I said no such things.  I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic".  Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic".  It isn't even fucking RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.

And no it's not part of "Sharia".  That was established way backthread.  Requoting from post 18:

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (post 18, op cit)​
Now, one can argue that _*governments *of Islamic countries_ don't do enough to quell this (and other) violence against women, but that's government, not religion, and India -- a country where along with Pakistan, HBV takes place more than any other country, has the same complaint (also linked earlier here).  India clearly has no "Sharia law" and its HBV occurrences manifest primarily in Hindu and Sikh communities -- two religions that have nothing to do with Islam -- and which also prohibit the practice.  But it cannot be described as a "Hindu" or "Sikh" practice either because once again --- _it's not related to religion_.  It's related to *social structure.*

There's far more to humans that what their religion is.  Just because some culture employs some practice, and that same culture also largely practices "Religion X",* does not make the latter the origin of the former.  *Take a contemporary American problem, let's say mass shootings:  If the US is a predominantly Christian (or Judeo-Christian) country, are we to conclude that  "mass shooting is prescribed by Christian Law?

Same thing.

As for whatever leeway might be given the populace by those Islamic governments -- that's based not on Sharia but on Napoleonic Codes:

>> With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’ Such laws have come under sustained opposition from women’s rights activists leading to some reforms: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq removed the provision for lighter sentencing for killers with ‘honourable’ motives in 2002 – although it remains in force in the rest of Iraq; Syria has recently increased the minimum sentence for an ‘honour’ killer from one year to two; and Palestine has recently removed the provision which it inherited from Jordanian law in the face of a particularly gruesome high-profile murder. However, such changes have limited applicability where these are not followed through by the criminal justice system, which may still tend to overlook murders and excuse their perpetrators. The availability of reduced sentencing causes murders which had financial or other motives to be represented as related to ‘honour’ so that the perpetrators of unrelated crimes can benefit from the reduced sentencing applied to ‘honour’. << --- HBV Awareness.com​



CremeBrulee said:


> Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.



Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it wasn't incorporated into any religion --- it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them.  And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.

What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other.  Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny.  They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
> ' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to play this degree of stupid?
> I said no such things.  I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic".  Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic".  It isn't even fucking RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.
> 
> And no it's not part of "Sharia".  That was established way backthread.  Requoting from post 18:
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (op cit)​
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them.  And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
> But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.
> 
> What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other.  Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny.  They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.
Click to expand...



   Pogo lied again-----I did not mention HONOR KILLING at all-----I discussed
"stoning" as a means of execution.     Got a link to my use of  "Honor Killing"----
pogo, dear?       Or more specifically to your allegation that I stated that shariah law includes comments on "honor killing".       Nope ---not me.     Nor did I deny
that honor killed was an Arabian custom even before muhummad was born. 
His post is packed with false allegation which he HOPES bolsters his very
silly notion that any custom that precedes the inception of a religion-----is not
PART of the jusrisprudence of that religion --------it must be termed  
"SIMPLY CULTURAL"       For the record----both male and female circumcision
preceded  Abraham-----thus according to Pogo----neither form has anything to
do with either islam or Judaism.        Bagels were not invented by jews----but
somehow got incorporated into the breakfast parties that are part of
lots of circumcision celebrations--------even those involving jews who never
saw a bagel till they got to the USA or Israel.      Pizza is not part of the cusoms
of USA  college life------because------I thing---maybe----it was invented in 
??  NAPOLI ??     It gets worse-----the USA has no system of jurisprudence since
virtually all of its elements can be found in English common law and ----the bible


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
> ' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to play this degree of stupid?
> I said no such things.  I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic".  Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic".  It isn't even fucking RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.
> 
> And no it's not part of "Sharia".  That was established way backthread.  Requoting from post 18:
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (post 18, op cit)​
> Now, one can argue that _*governments *of Islamic countries_ don't do enough to quell this (and other) violence against women, but that's government, not religion, and India -- a country where along with Pakistan, HBV takes place more than any other country, has the same complaint (also linked earlier here).  India clearly has no "Sharia law" and its HBV occurrences manifest primarily in Hindu and Sikh communities -- two religions that have nothing to do with Islam -- and which also prohibit the practice.  But it cannot be described as a "Hindu" or "Sikh" practice either because once again --- _it's not related to religion_.  It's related to *social structure.*
> 
> There's far more to humans that what their religion is.  Just because some culture employs some practice, and that same culture also largely practices "Religion X",* does not make the latter the origin of the former.  *Take a contemporary American problem, let's say mass shootings:  If the US is a predominantly Christian (or Judeo-Christian) country, are we to conclude that  "mass shooting is prescribed by Christian Law?
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> As for whatever leeway might be given the populace by those Islamic governments -- that's based not on Sharia but on Napoleonic Codes:
> 
> >> With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’ Such laws have come under sustained opposition from women’s rights activists leading to some reforms: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq removed the provision for lighter sentencing for killers with ‘honourable’ motives in 2002 – although it remains in force in the rest of Iraq; Syria has recently increased the minimum sentence for an ‘honour’ killer from one year to two; and Palestine has recently removed the provision which it inherited from Jordanian law in the face of a particularly gruesome high-profile murder. However, such changes have limited applicability where these are not followed through by the criminal justice system, which may still tend to overlook murders and excuse their perpetrators. The availability of reduced sentencing causes murders which had financial or other motives to be represented as related to ‘honour’ so that the perpetrators of unrelated crimes can benefit from the reduced sentencing applied to ‘honour’. << --- HBV Awareness.com​
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it wasn't incorporated into any religion --- it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them.  And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
> But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.
> 
> What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other.  Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny.  They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.
Click to expand...


     Nice bit of sophistry from your apologist site--------I did not mention honor
killing at all.    I discussed STONING as a means of execution.      Execution of
"adulterers"-----mode determined by court is very much part of shariah law-----
the divine and eternal legal code of islam


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
> ' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to play this degree of stupid?
> I said no such things.  I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic".  Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic".  It isn't even fucking RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.
> 
> And no it's not part of "Sharia".  That was established way backthread.  Requoting from post 18:
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (op cit)​
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them.  And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
> But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.
> 
> What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other.  Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny.  They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo lied again-----I did not mention HONOR KILLING at all-----I discussed
> "stoning" as a means of execution.     Got a link to my use of  "Honor Killing"----
> pogo, dear?       Or more specifically to your allegation that I stated that shariah law includes comments on "honor killing".       Nope ---not me.     Nor did I deny
> that honor killed was an Arabian custom even before muhummad was born.
> His post is packed with false allegation which he HOPES bolsters his very
> silly notion that any custom that precedes the inception of a religion-----is not
> PART of the jusrisprudence of that religion --------it must be termed
> "SIMPLY CULTURAL"       For the record----both male and female circumcision
> preceded  Abraham-----thus according to Pogo----neither form has anything to
> do with either islam or Judaism.        Bagels were not invented by jews----but
> somehow got incorporated into the breakfast parties that are part of
> lots of circumcision celebrations--------even those involving jews who never
> saw a bagel till they got to the USA or Israel.      Pizza is not part of the cusoms
> of USA  college life------because------I thing---maybe----it was invented in
> ??  NAPOLI ??     It gets worse-----the USA has no system of jurisprudence since
> virtually all of its elements can be found in English common law and ----the bible
Click to expand...


No you didn't --- >>> *** I *** <<< brought up "honor killing", and I did that before we even had the link to this event since that's what the scant description smelled like, and when the link finally came, I was right.

I'm also aware that you're constantly trying to shift all this off to the specific practice of stoning, but that matters not a whit, as I've already demonstrated, directly from the bible story, that stoning is ALSO older than Islam.  I take it you've given up the focus of HBV and that's why you want us all to look at the shiny object of stoning specifically.  Presumably your point is that they can kill this young woman if they like but stoning is the wrong way to do it?  Whatever, doesn't matter.  Nobody tried to make the point that "stoning is Islamic", so that's not what I was refuting.

It might be instructive here to point out that of the 20 people executed by a vigilante-mob mentality in Salem Massachusetts, the one victim that was not hanged was what they called "pressed to death" -- had a huge rock placed over him big enough that he couldn't move, and then more rocks piled on until he expired, which took _*two *_*days*.  Kind of a stoning in slow motion.

And without looking this up, I kinda tend to believe the vigilante freaks at Salem --- were not Muslims either.



irosie91 said:


> Execution of  "adulterers"-----mode determined by court is very much part of shariah law---- the divine and eternal legal code of islam



Again, bullshit.  Again already debunked twice.  You don't get to revise history by just hitting the "post" button on a message board.  I've given links.  You and your ilk have given nothing but empty claims.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  Bupkis.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point at all other than making a fool of yourself by INSISTING----
> ' if muhummad did not invent stoning people, then it is not part of shariah law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to play this degree of stupid?
> I said no such things.  I said, since we can prove honor killing (and specifically stoning as well) existed long before Islam did --- then it cannot be described as "Islamic".  Mohammad's birth date is simply a convenient time marker to prove that, because since he invented Islam, before him there is no Islam, therefore nothing before him is "Islamic".  It isn't even fucking RELIGIOUS -- Islam or any other.
> 
> And no it's not part of "Sharia".  That was established way backthread.  Requoting from post 18:
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. (op cit)​
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the stones were more convenient. It seems to me that stoning is a cultural practice that was incorporated into these religions as a means of being relevant to the culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something like that -- it was a cultural practice already extant, but it's not a religious practice anyway, so it simply predated the various religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianism, Hinduism, Sikhism) and continued in spite of them.  And by "it" I'm still talking "honor" based violence (HBV) whether by stoning or other means.
> But as it's not a practice OF any of these religions and it simply practiced in spite of them (they all prohibit it) ---- it's not a practice related to religion anyway.
> 
> What these morons are doing is taking two things that exist simultaneously among the same peoples and dishonestly concluding that one is the cause of the other.  Like saying Christianity invented the Easter bunny.  They completely ignore (because it's inconvenient to their bigotry) that HBV was already around long before the religions, and would have us pretend that Tuesday follows Thursday, as it were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo lied again-----I did not mention HONOR KILLING at all-----I discussed
> "stoning" as a means of execution.     Got a link to my use of  "Honor Killing"----
> pogo, dear?       Or more specifically to your allegation that I stated that shariah law includes comments on "honor killing".       Nope ---not me.     Nor did I deny
> that honor killed was an Arabian custom even before muhummad was born.
> His post is packed with false allegation which he HOPES bolsters his very
> silly notion that any custom that precedes the inception of a religion-----is not
> PART of the jusrisprudence of that religion --------it must be termed
> "SIMPLY CULTURAL"       For the record----both male and female circumcision
> preceded  Abraham-----thus according to Pogo----neither form has anything to
> do with either islam or Judaism.        Bagels were not invented by jews----but
> somehow got incorporated into the breakfast parties that are part of
> lots of circumcision celebrations--------even those involving jews who never
> saw a bagel till they got to the USA or Israel.      Pizza is not part of the cusoms
> of USA  college life------because------I thing---maybe----it was invented in
> ??  NAPOLI ??     It gets worse-----the USA has no system of jurisprudence since
> virtually all of its elements can be found in English common law and ----the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't --- >>> *** I *** <<< brought up "honor killing", and I did that before we even had the link to this event since that's what the scant description smelled like, and when the link finally came, I was right.
> 
> I'm also aware that you're constantly trying to shift all this off to the specific practice of stoning, but that matters not a whit, as I've already demonstrated, directly from the bible story, that stoning is older than Islam.
> 
> It might be instructive here to point out that of the 20 people executed by a vigilante-mob mentality in Salem Massachusetts, the one victim that was not hanged was what they called "pressed to death" -- had a huge rock placed over him big enough that he couldn't move, and then more rocks piled on until he expired, which took several *days*.  Kind of a stoning in slow motion.
Click to expand...


the salem witch trials were not conducted by vigilantes-----people are executed
for witch craft in shariah law too.       The link did not "smell"  like  "honor killing" ---to me -------it smelled like typical extant shariah law-------stoning for adultery----an idea which you decided is not SHARIAH LAW  because adultery is a crime in many systems that precede islam.     It was a crime even thousands of years ago in
ancient greek law


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...

"The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.

Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"

and

"Christianity[edit]

The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"


So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?


----------



## irosie91

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?




I am an American----I am prepared to condemn anything I damn please. 
In fact------I do not know the details of the case of the young girl in Iran
who  "committed adultery"      Adultery is defined in a myriad of DIFFERENT
ways in different systems.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
Click to expand...


And you Wingnuts wouldn't care about what is going on in the Middle East if they were standing on top of a bunch of oil. 

"Why you mean old misogynstic people, you clearly don't deserve to have that oil your country is on top of."


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?



Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ChrisL said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
Click to expand...



"Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."

"The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*" 

Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
Click to expand...


Do they do that in America?  No, they don't.  Why are you complaining about something that doesn't happen?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

So you don't follow your religion, hardly a revelation.


----------



## Alex.

Delta4Embassy said:


> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?


Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.

Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Alex. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
Click to expand...


Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.

Plus, come to think of it, AMerica despite being a 'secular nation' has had religious 'blue laws' on its books all along. Remember some stores would rope off their liquor aisles on Sunday for example.


----------



## Alex.

Delta4Embassy said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.
Click to expand...

Hardly, prove your point _with citation._


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> So you don't follow your religion, hardly a revelation.



I don't have a religion.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Alex. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, prove your point _with citation._
Click to expand...


google ten commandments artard. I don't need to cite proof the sky is blue.


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, prove your point _with citation._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google ten commandments artard. I don't need to cite proof the sky is blue.
Click to expand...


So, you are complaining and comparing this event (in the OP) to American Christians?  Seriously?  What is wrong with you?  That shit doesn't happen here in America, so I don't know what point you are even trying to make here?


----------



## ChrisL

Delta4Embassy said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.
> 
> Plus, come to think of it, AMerica despite being a 'secular nation' has had religious 'blue laws' on its books all along. Remember some stores would rope off their liquor aisles on Sunday for example.
Click to expand...


Do we kill and stone women for adultery here in America?  Yes or no.


----------



## Alex.

Delta4Embassy said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secular or theocratic is redundant due to a lot of overlap of religious and secular laws. Murder, theft, adultery are all religious laws originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, prove your point _with citation._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google ten commandments artard. I don't need to cite proof the sky is blue.
Click to expand...


Delta4Embassy: "google ten commandments *artard.* I don't need to cite proof the sky is blue."

artard
A retard as mentioned in South Park. Complete moron, absolute idiot.
Urban Dictionary: artard

I look up the term you called me, that is proof enough you are arguing in a vacuum. So you have nothing to backup your claim.


----------



## Pogo

Delta4Embassy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
Click to expand...


And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".



Alex. said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
Click to expand...


Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.

Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
Click to expand...

I was addressing Delta's post comparing a secular government to a theocracy.


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was addressing Delta's post comparing a secular government to a theocracy.
Click to expand...


I know that.  I just think both are equally irrelevant to the social dynamic behind events such as referenced in this thread.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was addressing Delta's post comparing a secular government to a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that.  I just think both are equally irrelevant to the social dynamic behind events such as referenced in this thread.
Click to expand...

I know, I was addressing Delta's post.


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was addressing Delta's post comparing a secular government to a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that.  I just think both are equally irrelevant to the social dynamic behind events such as referenced in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, I was addressing Delta's post.
Click to expand...


Yes, once again, I realize that. 

Again, whatever the merits of your arguments versus his, I'm simply saying *both* are off the topic of the root causes of the instant case in the OP.  In other words _neither_ is relevant to it.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was addressing Delta's post comparing a secular government to a theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that.  I just think both are equally irrelevant to the social dynamic behind events such as referenced in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, I was addressing Delta's post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, once again, I realize that.
> 
> Again, whatever the merits of your arguments versus his, I'm simply saying *both* are off the topic of the root causes of the instant case in the OP.  In other words _neither_ is relevant to it.
Click to expand...

It does not I was discussing a sub topic that was borne out of the OP.


----------



## Pogo

Holy shit dood get a life already.  It's been essplained twice, that's all you get.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Holy shit dood get a life already.  It's been essplained twice, that's all you get.


Then why get involved at all, I explained what I was doing and you came along to "fix" what was already working. Delta had no position to begin with and he abandoned his argument.


----------



## HenryBHough

Hey, you'll like Sharia Law when it comes to America!

Because.....if you don't then you'll be stoned to death!


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
Click to expand...


Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?



No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.

This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.



ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
Click to expand...


Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.

That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.

This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.

The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
Click to expand...


Yes, countries actually DO practice this as a form of punishment under their brand of Sharia law.  Who are you trying to kid here?  Why do you continue to defend this backwards arse crap?  I don't get it.  It's awful, barbaric and ignorant.  

Special report: The punishment was death by stoning. The crime? Having


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.


----------



## HenryBHough

On the brighter side, when Sharia law comes to America we can get back to using the term "stoned" in the way Allah intended.


----------



## ChrisL

HenryBHough said:


> On the brighter side, when Sharia law comes to America we can get back to using the term "stoned" in the way Allah intended.



We have a Constitution that protects us from that kind of religious bullshit.  THAT is just one reason why it is so important to keep bogus religious beliefs OUT of our government operations!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a trivial point (designed to dodge the issue) given that this is a consistent reality in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you Wingnuts wouldn't care about what is going on in the Middle East if they were standing on top of a bunch of oil.
> 
> "Why you mean old misogynstic people, you clearly don't deserve to have that oil your country is on top of."
Click to expand...


Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
Click to expand...


Uh, no.  That's absurd.
Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?

Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:

>> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."

... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
--- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.

Continuing:

>> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
"Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.

More:
*>> Origins*

Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.

The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:

>> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
_khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.

_* from that link:_

_>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]

The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]

_..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]

This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
— Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]

In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.

These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.


----------



## Programmer

Yeah, this is like what the mainstream media is doing to all the GOP candidates.  It's horrible.


----------



## Muhammed

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
Click to expand...

The custom is older than Islam. So logically...


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.



I understand bullshit perfectly well.  You don't give a fuck about slutty women getting stoned in Afghanistan and you don't care about Devil Worshipping Yazidis being slaughter in Iraq. 

Your concerns are...

1) Ripping on Obama because he's not throwing American blood and Treasure at the problem like Bush did. 
2) Being a tool of big oil wanting us to do 1).  

Not to worry, I'm sure there's no chance of you ever signing up to put an end to these things.  Let some poor brown kid from the Ghetto come back in a body bag for your "Altruism".


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
Click to expand...


Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.


----------



## Picaro

ChrisL said:


> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.



Yes, a lot of sophistry and selective cut and pasting, only to make the weak schoolyardish point that "Uh ... other people did it too, so there, take that!", which is apparently supposed to absolve these animals and their atavistic cult practices in the present or something. You didn't miss anything, just the 'bombard them with BS' tactic.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
Click to expand...


Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly


----------



## irosie91

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
Click to expand...


the scum of the earth play the   KORAN   VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS   is that which
actually does define islam.     Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
Click to expand...


It's "mentioned" in the Holey Babble too.  In fact that's where we all first learn of the practice as kids.

Does that mean it's a "Christian" thing?

Same thing.

I suspect you didn't read because it (again) disproves the whole myth.  And we'll not be having any of that, thank you very much...

.... and by the way I used your own link to do it.  Oopsie.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the   KORAN   VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS   is that which
> actually does define islam.     Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
Click to expand...


Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.



irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Christians in America do this?  No, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda curious how Christians so readily condemn non-Christians for their handling of adultery when...
> 
> "The United States is one of few industrialized countries to have laws criminalizing adultery.[133] In the United States, laws vary from state to state.
> 
> Adultery remains a criminal offense in 21 states, although prosecutions are rare.[141][142] Massachusetts, Idaho, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin consider adultery a felony, while in the other states it is a misdemeanor. It is a Class B misdemeanor in New York[143] and Utah, and a Class I felony in Wisconsin.[144] Penalties vary from a $10 fine (Maryland)[145] to four years in prison (Michigan).[146] In South Carolina, the fine for adultery is up to $500 and/or imprisonment for no more than one year [South Carolina code 16-15-60], and South Carolina divorce laws deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.[147][148][149]"
> 
> and
> 
> "Christianity[edit]
> 
> The Hebrew Bible prohibits adultery in the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:12). Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman:
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, *the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.*"
> 
> 
> So are Christians or Americans really in any position to object what Muslims do in Muslim countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
Click to expand...


Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!


----------



## Pogo

Muhammed said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The custom is older than Islam. So logically...
Click to expand...


if...... Islam..... weighs the same.... as a duck.....   ...... it must be made of ... wood?


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "mentioned" in the Holey Babble too.  In fact that's where we all first learn of the practice as kids.
> 
> Does that mean it's a "Christian" thing?
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> I suspect you didn't read because it (again) disproves the whole myth.  And we'll not be having any of that, thank you very much...
Click to expand...


are Christians stoning people for adultery?------In fact--neither did jews in recorded history.      Adultery is defined as screwing with a married woman.     Both the man who screws a married woman and the married woman who screws is considered
guilty of a crime in ancient jewish law.     In reality----in recorded history it has not
been treated as a capital crime in jewish jurisprudence.     In Islamic jurisprudence---the crime consists of a WOMAN who -----simply gets screwed by any man not her
husband -----even if the issue is rape.     A man can be considered guilty if HE screws a woman not  "LEGAL" for him to screw-----that would be the wife of another MUSLIM MAN.     Screwing a hindu, jew or Christian ---even if it is rape----is LEGAL.      Feel free to ask ------I know lots about shariah law----my very own husband was born in a shariah cesspit.       Not so long ago-----the "penalty"   for
female adultery in jewish law was------usually her husband divorced her.   At the time of the  "cast the first stone"  parable-----adultery was not being treated as a
capital crime


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the   KORAN   VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS   is that which
> actually does define islam.     Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments."
> 
> "The law of Plymouth Colony set forth a very high standard of ideal sexual conduct -- one might say it was an ideal adopted from the laws of their God. Sodomy, rape, buggery, and adultery (for a time) were all crimes punishable by death. Fornication and other lascivious acts outside of marriage were strictly forbidden. *However, when faced with a capital crime, the court avoided execution in all but one case.*"
> 
> Sexual Misconduct in Plymouth Colony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spitting on the sidewalk is a crime too in many places IIRC and like adultery is not prosecuted.  Stoning would be considered cruel and unusual and would not happen.
> 
> Also, the US is secular, not a theocratic government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
Click to expand...


you have no  "EVIDENCE"   pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.      It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No* country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious *purpose *in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps _religiously_; it serves a purpose (as they see it) _socially.  _And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "mentioned" in the Holey Babble too.  In fact that's where we all first learn of the practice as kids.
> 
> Does that mean it's a "Christian" thing?
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> I suspect you didn't read because it (again) disproves the whole myth.  And we'll not be having any of that, thank you very much...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are Christians stoning people for adultery?------In fact--neither did jews in recorded history.
Click to expand...


What the fuck is going on in John 8: 3-11?  Are they all about to sit down with a woman and get her high on hashish?


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?  Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<
> 
> 
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<
> 
> 
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> 
> >> Origins
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<
> 
> 
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even exists, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power. Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<
> 
> And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> khap panchayats of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're a tribal body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> * from that link:
> 
> 
> >>The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> ...The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<
> 
> 
> Again, these khap panchayats are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're tribal.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more recently the Ku Klux Klan did the same thing.  That's why I call 'em the "American Taliban".
> 
> Actually laws on the books are as irrelevant as religion, since acts like the OP are, like lynchings or Klan whippings, vigilante "justice" -- a mob mentality outside the purview of both.
> 
> Not every act that mobs commit is traceable to either laws or religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious purpose in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps religiously; it serves a purpose (as they see it) socially.  And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
Click to expand...


I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.

I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying about this?  Stoning is a punishment that exists in any country that practices Sharia law, such as Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?   Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<​
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<​
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> *>> Origins*
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<​
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even _exists_, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning *mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power.* Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<​And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> _khap_ _panchayats _of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're _a tribal _body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> _* from that link:_
> 
> _>>_The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> _..._The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<​
> Again, these _khap panchayats_ are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're *tribal*.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "mentioned" in the Holey Babble too.  In fact that's where we all first learn of the practice as kids.
> 
> Does that mean it's a "Christian" thing?
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> I suspect you didn't read because it (again) disproves the whole myth.  And we'll not be having any of that, thank you very much...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are Christians stoning people for adultery?------In fact--neither did jews in recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck is going on in John 8: 3-11?  Are they all about to sit down with a woman and get her high on hashish?
Click to expand...


there was no     "JOHN"     the book attributed to a  "JOHN"    is an amalgam of several writings       the most exciting being   the  BOOK OF REVULSIONS----a hashish galvanized thing along the lines of the  BOOK OF DANIEL.   The very
best that can be said about   John   8: 3-11   is that it is  a parable manufactured
a few centuries   "later"     It is absolutely NOT historic.       What IS true is that
such parables were very much USED by jews and some idiots like to believe
that such non historic stories------which jews call   MIDRASH  are actual history---
nope-------they are teaching tools.      In order for a person to be executed in jewish
jurisprudence at that time-----he had to be tried by THE SANHEDRIN in Jerusalem----not by a gaggle of  "pharisees"   out somewhere in the sticks.        ALSO  according to the NT-----jews had absolutely  no power to execute anyone-----even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem could
not    (probably not true-----but it is so claimed in the NT----probably to explain why
jews did not killed Jesus but FORCED   "SAINT PONTIUS PILATE"  to do it)

an interesting Factoid-----the Book of Daniel----is kinda---sorta ---considered so weird by  jewish scholars for the past   2000 years that people are advised not to
obsess over it


----------



## Pogo




----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?  Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<
> 
> 
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<
> 
> 
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> 
> >> Origins
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<
> 
> 
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even exists, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power. Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<
> 
> And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> khap panchayats of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're a tribal body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> * from that link:
> 
> 
> >>The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> ...The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<
> 
> 
> Again, these khap panchayats are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're tribal.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious purpose in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps religiously; it serves a purpose (as they see it) socially.  And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
Click to expand...

Your post was about that, otherwise you would not have commented.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  That's absurd.
> Where do you get these weird notions?  Got a link?
> 
> Edit, reading back a post -- I see you do.  From that link:
> 
> >> "It is one of the most brutal forms of violence perpetrated against women in order to control and punish their sexuality and basic freedoms."
> 
> ... Stoning is not legal in most Muslim countries and there is no mention of it in the Koran. <<
> 
> 
> --- both of which I've noted throughout.  It's a cultural artifact to "protect family status" by brutally controlling women.  That's exactly what I meant by hyperpatriarchy.  It sucks, it's barbaric, it's subhuman.  But it doesn't come from religion.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
> >> However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign. <<
> 
> 
> "Extradjudicially" = 'outside the law'.  Vigilantes, as I've been noting.  And in the latter part of the paragraph, a terrorism device, also illegal, and neither of which is religious.
> 
> More:
> 
> >> Origins
> 
> Stoning has been used as a form of community justice throughout history in various religious and cultural traditions, many pre-dating Islam.  .... The practice has been documented among the Ancient Greeks to punish people judged to be prostitutes, adulterers or murderers. It is also mentioned in the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and the Talmud. <<
> 
> 
> That's your own link, confirming what I've been saying all along.  Indeed the first time most of us hear about the specific practice of stoning is in the Bible -- "let him who is without sin" etc.  And again, that's an event taking place six hundred years before Mohammad even exists, so by the law of linear time he can't possibly have invented it.
> 
> The rest of your link reconfirms the focus on obsessive control of women and more recently, stoning as a terrorism device, notably:
> 
> >> Many prominent Muslim clerics have spoken in support of a ban on stoning, deeming it un-Islamic and antithetical to the Koran's emphasis on repentance and compassion. Shameem said stoning mostly happened in conflict or post-conflict areas where politicians, warlords and militants exploit people's religious beliefs as they jockey for power. Mali saw its first case last year after Islamist militants took control of the north of the country. It is not clear why, in Bibi's case, the tribal court should have justified stoning as a punishment for owning a mobile phone. Shameem said stoning and the threat of stoning was being used "to control women, constrain their freedoms, and police their sexuality". <<
> 
> And note again the term "tribal court".  That's an extrajudicial community body, like the
> khap panchayats of India* that serve the same purpose.  They're not a government body; they're not a religious body.  They're a tribal body self-convened to give the illusion of a pseud-court.  Not related to either the local government or the local religion.
> 
> * from that link:
> 
> 
> >>The Khap panchayts frequently deliberate on social issues to attempt to combat social problems like female abortions, alcohol abuse, dowry, rape [15][16][17] and to promote education.[18] specially among girls[19]
> 
> The largest Khap in Haryana is the Satrol Khap, which allowed inter-caste marriage in 2014,[20] providing the marriage is not within the same gotra, village, or neighboring villages[21]
> 
> ...The Supreme Court has declared illegal 'Khap panchayats' which often decree or encourage honour killings or other institutionalised atrocities against boys and girls of different castes and religions who wish to get married or have married.[25]
> 
> This is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. There is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of the personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.
> — Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra.[26]
> 
> In his report to the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandaran, Senior Advocate appointed by the Court to assist it in PILs against Khap Panchayats has called for arrest of "self styled" decision makers and proactive action by the police to protect the fundamental rights of the people. It also asked for the recommendations being converted as directions to all States and the Union, till a law is enacted by the Parliament.[27] <<
> 
> 
> Again, these khap panchayats are not affiliated with Hinduism nor Sikhism, nor are they sanctioned by or affiliated with their local or federal governments.  They're tribal.  Read the link if you don't believe me.
> 
> These are ancient social constructs that simply do not have a cognate in our culture.  I know it would be easier to ascribe them to an avenue we're familiar with like religions but it just isn't the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, what country in the western world practices this type of "punishment?"  Any?  Why are you so protective of this particular religion but have no problem with talking shit about other religions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, only Muslims practice this barbarism nowadays.  This is part of their Sharia law, so is indeed part of their "religion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious purpose in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps religiously; it serves a purpose (as they see it) socially.  And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
Click to expand...


stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too long, didn't read.  It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been sleeping for the last couple of decades that Iran is a theocracy.  Stoning and other such punishments are mentioned in their holy books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No country -- and no religion --- practices this.  That's my whole point.
> 
> This isn't being "protective of religion".  I have no reason to do that.  This is simply being protective of Truth.  Which IS sacred.
> 
> Nope, wrong, and no, it isn't.  Actual figures are hard to come by (many go unreported) but the two places where HBV goes on the most are India and Pakistan.  That means among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and the nonreligious.
> 
> That's not a function of those countries' governments, and it's not a function of any of those religions or lack-of.  It's a function of culture.  And it always has been.
> 
> This site is nauseatingly slow right now so I'm not going to continue for the moment but I refer you back to post 18 (which has never been refuted or challenged) and note that HBV serves no religious purpose in any religion, because it's simply not an act OF religion but an act of cultural status and mores.  IOW it doesn't do anything for the perps religiously; it serves a purpose (as they see it) socially.  And I make the distinction because Anthroplogy is a particular area of study/interest of mine.
> 
> The attempt by the emotion-mongering gadflies to pin this on Islam (or Hiduism, or Sikhism, or national governments) only serves to take our eye off the ball of the real roots, which have to do with ancient cultural hyperpatriarchy.  That's it comes from and that's where the change has to happen.  Until it does, its ill effects will continue.  In this and too many other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?




Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
Click to expand...


do your own searching-----in fact there are lots of muslims in the USA-----talk to one.    I do not do the work of a law clerk.        You could visit a mosque----not that
doing so will yield much-------I did it before  9-11-01  when the constant surveillance
began.    SHARIAH LAW is on line-------it is the legal code of  IRAN


----------



## Pogo

"Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".

You lose, babeh.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the scum of the earth play the  KORAN  VS  HADITHS  game-----the real issue is  SHARIAH LAW----that law determined by  KORANIC SCHOLARS  is that which
> actually does define islam.  Any time a person says or writes------"SHOW ME THE VERSE IN THE KORAN"-----that is a clear proof that he is a piece of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo----you know nothing about shariah law or about hindus or about Sikhs-----your commentary is silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
Click to expand...

_"Book 017, Number 4194:  _

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death"

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

Clear enough


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's proof that the burden OF proof is on the asserter.  And when the asserter can't come up with it ---- poof... there goes perspiration odor.
> 
> Translation  don't you dare challenge my myths with that 'evidence' and 'logic' stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Book 017, Number 4194:  _
> 
> 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death"
> 
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Clear enough
Click to expand...


And that's where in the Qu'ran?

What the fuck 'book' even is that?  And what was the alleged 'crime'?

What I was asking for back there is some basis that it's part of Islam -- the religion.  Not for some oblique reference to the practice.  Anybody can do that:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."  -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
--- all these show us is that stoning is ancient practice common in that area.  Some of these wags have been trying to deflect the issue off to the specific practice of stoning, rather than what it started out as, HBV.  I don't have a complete history of the practice but obviously all of these passages are way older than Islam.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no  "EVIDENCE"  pogo------stoning for adultery is part of the LEGAL CODE OF BOTH IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA  -----adultery being a crime that women do------not men-----just women.  It may be part of the legal code of many other shariah shit holes-------I have no interest in researching the issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Book 017, Number 4194:  _
> 
> 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death"
> 
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Clear enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where in the Qu'ran?
> 
> What the fuck 'book' even is that?
Click to expand...

Do your homework I provided my proof and the link. I can't read it for you


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made no posts on what which country's adultery laws are.  I have no interest in that either.  Somebody earlier posted adultery laws in the US, but that wasn't me.
> 
> I haven't been posting on government laws or religious laws.  I've been posting on *tribal customs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Book 017, Number 4194:  _
> 
> 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death"
> 
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Clear enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where in the Qu'ran?
> 
> What the fuck 'book' even is that?
> 
> What I was asking for back there is some basis that it's part of Islam -- the religion. Not for some oblique reference to the practice. Anybody can do that:
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20
> 
> --- all these show us is that stoning is ancient practice common in that area. Some of these wags have been trying to deflect the issue off to the specific practice of stoning, rather than what it started out as, HBV. I don't have a complete history of the practice but obviously all of these passages are way older than Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do your homework I provided my proof and the link. I can't read it for you
Click to expand...


So you don't understand your own link.  Even after you yourself describe it as "clear enough". 
Apparently not.  Why am I not surprised.

As I always say, if you can't articulate your point ---- you ain't got one.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> stoning is law in shariah law-------if you like to refer to shariah law as  "TRIBAL LAW"----try not to do it in a mosque------some indignant muslim might slit your throat.     It is clear to me that you never met a muslim and know nothing about islam.    I will help-----muslim babies are taught from birth----that the only civilized and enlightened law in the world is  SHARIAH-----and muhummad was an utter genius ------who was far more enlightened than any  kaffir could ever be.   Muhummad INVENTED the concept of charity and----virtually did away with slavery-----and authored the religion with the MOSTEST TOLERATION   <<<<  I have this
> information from highly educated persons -----educated in the MUSLIM STYLE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN --- link?  Quote?  Passage in Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Spare me the empty ipse dixit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Book 017, Number 4194:  _
> 
> 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death"
> 
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Clear enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where in the Qu'ran?
> 
> What the fuck 'book' even is that?
> 
> What I was asking for back there is some basis that it's part of Islam -- the religion. Not for some oblique reference to the practice. Anybody can do that:
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20
> 
> --- all these show us is that stoning is ancient practice common in that area. Some of these wags have been trying to deflect the issue off to the specific practice of stoning, rather than what it started out as, HBV. I don't have a complete history of the practice but obviously all of these passages are way older than Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do your homework I provided my proof and the link. I can't read it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't understand your own link.  Even after you yourself describe it as "clear enough".
> Apparently not.  Why am I not surprised.
> 
> As I always say, if you can't articulate your point ---- you ain't got one.
Click to expand...

LOL I provided what you asked. Please get off your butt and read if you wish to be enlightened, if not then stay ignorant and sound like a fool.


----------



## Pogo

"Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".

You lose, babeh.

My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.

Pick something you can actually win next time.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.


I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.

"The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.

Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.

Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."

Clear enough Chuckles?


----------



## irosie91

the bottom line is------pogo-----it is what gets ruled in shariah courts-----try to live with reality.  
It is not so ruled in USA courts and not so ruled in the  "beth din"  --<<<< jewish courts


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
Click to expand...


Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"

-- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?

Know what I've gotten in response to that question?




​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> the bottom line is------pogo-----it is what gets ruled in shariah courts-----try to live with reality.
> It is not so ruled in USA courts and not so ruled in the  "beth din"  --<<<< jewish courts



And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "courts"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom.*

I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
Click to expand...

I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.

You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.

You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.

BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement


----------



## Pogo

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
Click to expand...


and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.

You lose.


----------



## Alex.

Pogo said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...

Try again and read for meaning


----------



## irosie91

Alex. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do your own searching" = "I can't prove my point".
> 
> You lose, babeh.
> 
> My link way back in post 18 (and earlier threads) noted that there's no sanction of HBV anywhere in the Quran or Hadiths.  That remains unchallenged.
> 
> Pick something you can actually win next time.
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
Click to expand...


forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
and their legal system has  no meaning


----------



## Likkmee

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Would that I could call them simply "misguided"; but let's call it what it really is; MURDER. Islam proudly produces and facilitates MURDERERS.


So "Islam" is Arabic for "Pentagon" ?


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
Click to expand...


And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.

I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.  See post 100 for gory detail.  The one the last respondent complained was "too long".  Sorry, sometimes the Truth is bigger than a bite-size morsel that fits on a bumper sticker.  Tough shit; deal with it.

And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
Click to expand...


the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
Click to expand...


Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.

HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".

All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.

Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
Click to expand...


I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"


----------



## HenryBHough

ChrisL said:


> We have a Constitution that protects us from that kind of religious bullshit.  THAT is just one reason why it is so important to keep bogus religious beliefs OUT of our government operations!



Nice but you're living in the past.

We HAD a Constitution.......

Back when we had a president rather than an emperor.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
Click to expand...


Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".

And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.


----------



## Alex.

irosie91 said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I am going to have to spoon feed you, typical tactic by the person who loses  the argument.
> 
> "The penal laws of Islam are called Hudud in the Hadith and Fiqh. This word is the plural of Hadd, which means prevention, hindrance, restraint, prohibition, and hence a restrictive ordinance or statute of God, respecting things lawful and unlawful.
> 
> Punishments are divided into two classes, one of which is called Hadd and the other Ta'zir. The Hadd is a measure of punishment defined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In Ta'zir, the court, is allowed to use its discretion in regard to the form and measure in which such punishment is to be inflicted.
> 
> Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms: death by stoning, amputation of a limb or limbs, flogging by one hundred or eighty strokes."
> 
> Clear enough Chuckles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- unlinked.  Meanwhile your text here does say "The Hadd is a measure of punishment *defined by the Qur'an* and the Sunnah"
> 
> -- and my original question, was, and still is --- where does the Qur'an sanction HBV?
> 
> Know what I've gotten in response to that question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I mean, it's good music and all that.  But it's not an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link and that was from the same source, you are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
> 
> You have once again gotten caught blowing smoke instead of actually discussing the issue.
> 
> You have lost once again it seems every time I discuss something with  you lose and try to turn it around.
> 
> BTW here is the link ONCE AGAIN.
> Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that link says no such thing.  It doesn't even _MENTION _HBV.  At all.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again and read for meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
Click to expand...

Thanks Rosie, I have seen him like this before.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> forget it ,  alex------Pogo will INSIST forever that muslims are primitives
> and their legal system has  no meaning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".
> 
> And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.
Click to expand...


what is   HBV??      You keep using the abbreviation.     I thought it related to honor killing but now I am not sure.      It is an abbreviation for  Hepatitis B virus        I do not use it-----for me  hepatitis is   HEP---either  A    B    or C.     The OP described a case of court ordered execution of a young woman for adultery in a shariah court. .
The complicating and mitigating issue was that she had been forced into a young marriage and then -------went off with a young man she actually loved.     You have
REPEATEDLY stated   "show me the verse in the koran"-----to what were you referring and why do you make the statement  "show me the verse in the koran"----
I do not read Arabic and I am not a koranic scholar.    I know details of shariah law------lots.      I learned lots about it from muslims and later on from my husband and his relatives.     He was born in a  DHIMMI----(also an aspect of the Islamic legal
system)   in a shariah shit hole.     Relatives older than he is remember  (or remembered) the filth,,    very well..      I did read the koran in English translation
but do not style myself a SCHOLAR of the koran because of that fact------I leave that to the  Qadis   (judges in shariah courts)


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand bullshit perfectly well.  You don't give a fuck about slutty women getting stoned in Afghanistan and you don't care about Devil Worshipping Yazidis being slaughter in Iraq.
> 
> Your concerns are...
> 
> 1) Ripping on Obama because he's not throwing American blood and Treasure at the problem like Bush did.
> 2) Being a tool of big oil wanting us to do 1).
> 
> Not to worry, I'm sure there's no chance of you ever signing up to put an end to these things.  Let some poor brown kid from the Ghetto come back in a body bag for your "Altruism".
Click to expand...


You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd cower like the sniveling bitch you are.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Muhammed said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The custom is older than Islam. So logically...
Click to expand...


So, logically what? Islam is justified? I love how Pogo tried to support your flimsy post with gay levity, too.


----------



## Alex.

*Sahih Muslim Book 17 Hadith 4192*
'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (Peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and *then stoning (to death)*. And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year."


References
 Muslim Book of Legal Punishments #4192
 Muslim 1690 c
 Sahih Muslim Vol. 4, Book 17, Hadith 4192

Sahih Muslim Book Number 17 Hadith Number 4192 - Muflihun


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once AGAIN I haven't been talking about "legal systems"; I've been describing an ancient *tribal custom. * One that is outside both legal systems and religions.
> 
> I'll keep repeating that until it sinks in.
> 
> And to describe an entire worldwide religion as "primitives" would be a whole bag full of fallacies.  I didn't do that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".
> 
> And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is   HBV??      You keep using the abbreviation.     I thought it related to honor killing but now I am not sure.      It is an abbreviation for  Hepatitis B virus        I do not use it-----for me  hepatitis is   HEP---either  A    B    or C.     The OP described a case of court ordered execution of a young woman for adultery in a shariah court. .
> The complicating and mitigating issue was that she had been forced into a young marriage and then -------went off with a young man she actually loved.     You have
> REPEATEDLY stated   "show me the verse in the koran"-----to what were you referring and why do you make the statement  "show me the verse in the koran"----
> I do not read Arabic and I am not a koranic scholar.    I know details of shariah law------lots.      I learned lots about it from muslims and later on from my husband and his relatives.     He was born in a  DHIMMI----(also an aspect of the Islamic legal
> system)   in a shariah shit hole.     Relatives older than he is remember  (or remembered) the filth,,    very well..      I did read the koran in English translation
> but do not style myself a SCHOLAR of the koran because of that fact------I leave that to the  Qadis   (judges in shariah courts)
Click to expand...


You might try actually reading the thread.  HBV is what I've been posting about since the first post I made here -- even before there was any link to any story -- the one Gasbag insisted I shouldn't see---  I suspected that the event referred to in the OP was about HBV.  And sure enough --- it was.

Again, "HBV" = "Honor-Based Violence".  For someone who doesn't know what the abbreviation means you sure ain't shy about declaring where it comes from.


----------



## irosie91

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand bullshit perfectly well.  You don't give a fuck about slutty women getting stoned in Afghanistan and you don't care about Devil Worshipping Yazidis being slaughter in Iraq.
> 
> Your concerns are...
> 
> 1) Ripping on Obama because he's not throwing American blood and Treasure at the problem like Bush did.
> 2) Being a tool of big oil wanting us to do 1).
> 
> Not to worry, I'm sure there's no chance of you ever signing up to put an end to these things.  Let some poor brown kid from the Ghetto come back in a body bag for your "Altruism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd cower like the sniveling bitch you are.
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the  LEGAL SYSTEM of islam is called   SHARIAH LAW.     In shariah courts---females who commit adultery-----are ordered to be executed by stoning.      You have claimed on this very thread-----that stoning women accused of adultery to
> death is simply  ---primitive cultural tribal custom and has nothing to do with
> shariah law which is the DIVINE AND ETERNAL LAW OF ISLAM as per koranic
> scholars over the past  ---approximately 1200 years.    You like to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".
> 
> And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is   HBV??      You keep using the abbreviation.     I thought it related to honor killing but now I am not sure.      It is an abbreviation for  Hepatitis B virus        I do not use it-----for me  hepatitis is   HEP---either  A    B    or C.     The OP described a case of court ordered execution of a young woman for adultery in a shariah court. .
> The complicating and mitigating issue was that she had been forced into a young marriage and then -------went off with a young man she actually loved.     You have
> REPEATEDLY stated   "show me the verse in the koran"-----to what were you referring and why do you make the statement  "show me the verse in the koran"----
> I do not read Arabic and I am not a koranic scholar.    I know details of shariah law------lots.      I learned lots about it from muslims and later on from my husband and his relatives.     He was born in a  DHIMMI----(also an aspect of the Islamic legal
> system)   in a shariah shit hole.     Relatives older than he is remember  (or remembered) the filth,,    very well..      I did read the koran in English translation
> but do not style myself a SCHOLAR of the koran because of that fact------I leave that to the  Qadis   (judges in shariah courts)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try actually reading the thread.  HBV is what I've been posting about since the first post I made here -- even before there was any link to any story -- the one Gasbag insisted I shouldn't see---  I suspected that the event referred to in the OP was about HBV.  And sure enough --- it was.
> 
> Again, "HBV" = "Honor-Based Violence".  For someone who doesn't know what the abbreviation means you sure ain't shy about declaring where it comes from.
Click to expand...


oh    ok    well---why are you ascribing this case to  'honor based violence'??? 
   in Islamic law executing for adultery is not  "honor based violence"------it is   
   penalty for crime.       The thread has nothing to do with  "honor based violence" if
   one considers the thread to be based on the OP.       Where did I claim to state
   where   the abbreviation  "comes from"?          it was obvious to me that you were
   not talking about     Hepatitis.      You did clarify a bit-------according to you ----
   SHARIAH COURTS are not real courts-----they are primitive macho man
   machines.       Do not let your impression of Shariah law be known in a mosque---
   someone might be inspired to slit your throat.     I have known lots of muslims----
   mostly not observant-----but even non observant muslims are proud of that 
   disgusting legal system


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand bullshit perfectly well.  You don't give a fuck about slutty women getting stoned in Afghanistan and you don't care about Devil Worshipping Yazidis being slaughter in Iraq.
> 
> Your concerns are...
> 
> 1) Ripping on Obama because he's not throwing American blood and Treasure at the problem like Bush did.
> 2) Being a tool of big oil wanting us to do 1).
> 
> Not to worry, I'm sure there's no chance of you ever signing up to put an end to these things.  Let some poor brown kid from the Ghetto come back in a body bag for your "Altruism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd cower like the sniveling bitch you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm.... no.  I have claimed, and proven, on this very thread and others before it, that *HBV* is an ancient tribal custom.  I know you're obsessed with the whole "stoning" thing but that's not relevant.
> 
> HBV is HBV.  In India it's usually done by burning.  You know, like the Church used to do with witches (although the Church certainly didn't invent burning either).  Beheading has been another method.  When Henry VIII used that on Anne Boleyn it was in a twisted way a kind of "mercy" ----- he could have burned her according to prevailing custom of the time.  It's always brutal, and it's almost always women on the receiving end.  That's why I call it "hyperpatriarchy".
> 
> All I've noted about "stoning" per se is that it *also* predates Islam, and I documented that too.
> 
> Why are you so desperate to deflect from HBV onto "stoning"?  It's a bit too early in the day to get stoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".
> 
> And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is   HBV??      You keep using the abbreviation.     I thought it related to honor killing but now I am not sure.      It is an abbreviation for  Hepatitis B virus        I do not use it-----for me  hepatitis is   HEP---either  A    B    or C.     The OP described a case of court ordered execution of a young woman for adultery in a shariah court. .
> The complicating and mitigating issue was that she had been forced into a young marriage and then -------went off with a young man she actually loved.     You have
> REPEATEDLY stated   "show me the verse in the koran"-----to what were you referring and why do you make the statement  "show me the verse in the koran"----
> I do not read Arabic and I am not a koranic scholar.    I know details of shariah law------lots.      I learned lots about it from muslims and later on from my husband and his relatives.     He was born in a  DHIMMI----(also an aspect of the Islamic legal
> system)   in a shariah shit hole.     Relatives older than he is remember  (or remembered) the filth,,    very well..      I did read the koran in English translation
> but do not style myself a SCHOLAR of the koran because of that fact------I leave that to the  Qadis   (judges in shariah courts)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try actually reading the thread.  HBV is what I've been posting about since the first post I made here -- even before there was any link to any story -- the one Gasbag insisted I shouldn't see---  I suspected that the event referred to in the OP was about HBV.  And sure enough --- it was.
> 
> Again, "HBV" = "Honor-Based Violence".  For someone who doesn't know what the abbreviation means you sure ain't shy about declaring where it comes from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh    ok    well---why are you ascribing this case to  'honor based violence'???
> in Islamic law executing for adultery is not  "honor based violence"------it is
> penalty for crime.       The thread has nothing to do with  "honor based violence" if
> one considers the thread to be based on the OP.       Where did I claim to state
> where   the abbreviation  "comes from"?          it was obvious to me that you were
> not talking about     Hepatitis.      You did clarify a bit-------according to you ----
> SHARIAH COURTS are not real courts-----they are primitive macho man
> machines.       Do not let your impression of Shariah law be known in a mosque---
> someone might be inspired to slit your throat.     I have known lots of muslims----
> mostly not observant-----but even non observant muslims are proud of that
> disgusting legal system
Click to expand...


Kindly stop putting words in my mouth.  I've said nothing about "Sharia courts" or what they are.  I've described HBV as a cultural artifact from a *tribal level.*  I keep using that adjective and you keep hearing "Sharia courts" or some other shit.  You just ain't listening.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The custom is older than Islam. So logically...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, logically what? Islam is justified? I love how Pogo tried to support your flimsy post with gay levity, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to be a lead-in reference to the Life of Brian witch scene, and ran with it.
> 
> So suck me.
> 
> Without that connection the obvious meaning is that since the custom PREDATES Islam......... then.... Islam cannot have invented it.
> 
> Just as we know Louie Chevrolet didn't invent the wheel because we have records of horse carriages and chariots.
> 
> But we already made that point, so I went with the comedy.
Click to expand...


That's not the argument (who invented stoning) (nor have I argued it either), and you know it. Like I said at the outset, this is what you want it to be, so that you can avoid talking about thee real issue (barbaric Islam) for which this thread was created.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGutlesswonder said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected -- an "honor killing".  It's an ancient tribal custom enacted for social control that predates Islam, Christianism, Sikhism, Hinduism and every other religion where it still takes place.  It's fucked up, it's primitive, it's based on archconservative hyperpatriarchy --- but it's got nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with women scaring the shit out of men so they get violent about it.  The last quoted sentence underscores that.
> 
> Not religious.  Just as the Gospel event cited in the OP would have had nothing to do with Judaism.  It dates back thousands of years to nomadic tribes jealous of their possessions.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it. Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The custom is older than Islam. So logically...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, logically what? Islam is justified? I love how Pogo tried to support your flimsy post with gay levity, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to be a lead-in reference to the Life of Brian witch scene, and ran with it.
> 
> So suck me.
> 
> Without that connection the obvious meaning is that since the custom PREDATES Islam......... then.... Islam cannot have invented it.
> 
> Just as we know Louie Chevrolet didn't invent the wheel because we have records of horse carriages and chariots.
> 
> But we already made that point, so I went with the comedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not the argument (who invented stoning) (nor have I argued it either), and you know it. Like I said at the outset, this is what you want it to be, so that you can avoid talking about thee real issue (barbaric Islam) for which this thread was created.
Click to expand...


Bull Fucking Shit.  YOU were the first asshat to try to divert this off to the specific practice of stoning.  Post 35.

And no I don't believe that was the purpose of this thread at all.  The actual purpose was lost long ago; all of this great tangent was merely a correction that you and the mythmongers went ballistic on.  

Go read the OP.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo

As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.



Again, you're a liar.  I've never argued what the origin of stoning is.  I don't even know that info.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Altruism; you comprehend it zero percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand bullshit perfectly well.  You don't give a fuck about slutty women getting stoned in Afghanistan and you don't care about Devil Worshipping Yazidis being slaughter in Iraq.
> 
> Your concerns are...
> 
> 1) Ripping on Obama because he's not throwing American blood and Treasure at the problem like Bush did.
> 2) Being a tool of big oil wanting us to do 1).
> 
> Not to worry, I'm sure there's no chance of you ever signing up to put an end to these things.  Let some poor brown kid from the Ghetto come back in a body bag for your "Altruism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd cower like the sniveling bitch you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I referred to the OP-----   you have a fixation on a silly bit of sophistry that you
> imagine justifies the filth you support----to wit---shariah law which you have decided
> to claim is  "not Islamic"          Got that   fellow posters?   SHARIAH LAW is not Islamic ------it is something called    "hyperpatriarchy"      He also claims that
> women are burned to death by court order in India -----because of  "hyperpatriarchy"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you talking about?  Who's "he"?  I said nothing about Sharia being "not Islamic".  And as far as I know the only poster who brought up HBV in India was me.  And I specifically said it's NOT by "court order".
> 
> And I'm sure I'm the only one to bring that up because you clowns trying to make it into "Islam" would find the long legacy of Hindus and Sikhs doing it very inconvenient to that myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is   HBV??      You keep using the abbreviation.     I thought it related to honor killing but now I am not sure.      It is an abbreviation for  Hepatitis B virus        I do not use it-----for me  hepatitis is   HEP---either  A    B    or C.     The OP described a case of court ordered execution of a young woman for adultery in a shariah court. .
> The complicating and mitigating issue was that she had been forced into a young marriage and then -------went off with a young man she actually loved.     You have
> REPEATEDLY stated   "show me the verse in the koran"-----to what were you referring and why do you make the statement  "show me the verse in the koran"----
> I do not read Arabic and I am not a koranic scholar.    I know details of shariah law------lots.      I learned lots about it from muslims and later on from my husband and his relatives.     He was born in a  DHIMMI----(also an aspect of the Islamic legal
> system)   in a shariah shit hole.     Relatives older than he is remember  (or remembered) the filth,,    very well..      I did read the koran in English translation
> but do not style myself a SCHOLAR of the koran because of that fact------I leave that to the  Qadis   (judges in shariah courts)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try actually reading the thread.  HBV is what I've been posting about since the first post I made here -- even before there was any link to any story -- the one Gasbag insisted I shouldn't see---  I suspected that the event referred to in the OP was about HBV.  And sure enough --- it was.
> 
> Again, "HBV" = "Honor-Based Violence".  For someone who doesn't know what the abbreviation means you sure ain't shy about declaring where it comes from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh    ok    well---why are you ascribing this case to  'honor based violence'???
> in Islamic law executing for adultery is not  "honor based violence"------it is
> penalty for crime.       The thread has nothing to do with  "honor based violence" if
> one considers the thread to be based on the OP.       Where did I claim to state
> where   the abbreviation  "comes from"?          it was obvious to me that you were
> not talking about     Hepatitis.      You did clarify a bit-------according to you ----
> SHARIAH COURTS are not real courts-----they are primitive macho man
> machines.       Do not let your impression of Shariah law be known in a mosque---
> someone might be inspired to slit your throat.     I have known lots of muslims----
> mostly not observant-----but even non observant muslims are proud of that
> disgusting legal system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kindly stop putting words in my mouth.  I've said nothing about "Sharia courts" or what they are.  I've described HBV as a cultural artifact from a *tribal level.*  I keep using that adjective and you keep hearing "Sharia courts" or some other shit.  You just ain't listening.
Click to expand...


oh    how do you relate    "HBV"   to the actual topic of the thread which was
determined by the OP?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're a liar.  I've never argued what the origin of stoning is.  I don't even know that info.
Click to expand...


Don't play semantics, son; or trifle with the word liar for that matter. You blather on about how stoning pre-dates Islam at every chance. Now then, step into 2015 and deal with reality (*for which this thread was created*). We don't care about your meandering history lessons.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd cower like the sniveling bitch you are.



Yeah, so you are signing up to go fight ISIL tomorrow, then? 

Because frankly, your talk is cheap. 

You see, I honestly don't give a fuck about people getting stoned in the Islamic world. They know what the rules of their societies are.  It's not my problem.


----------



## anotherlife

I've always wanted to widen my helmet business to sell more to them, my newest model fits under the burka seamlessly.  Also we need to send them real baseballs this time.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're off the rails, dude. I speak up for those whom can't speak for themselves. I'd not cower like the sniveling bitch you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so you are signing up to go fight ISIL tomorrow, then?
> 
> Because frankly, your talk is cheap.
> 
> You see, I honestly don't give a fuck about people getting stoned in the Islamic world. They know what the rules of their societies are.  It's not my problem.
Click to expand...


Signing up for a military controlled by a tyrant is not a qualifier for speaking up. Nice try, deuche.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're a liar.  I've never argued what the origin of stoning is.  I don't even know that info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't play semantics, son; or trifle with the word liar for that matter. You blather on about how stoning pre-dates Islam at every chance. Now then, step into 2015 and deal with reality (*for which this thread was created*). We don't care about your meandering history lessons.
Click to expand...


Once again son  ---- WHO posted this?



TheGreatGatsby said:


> you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam.



Is that my name on that post??

I have never, here or anywhere else, posted on "the origin of stoning".  I don't know what that origin is, I doubt anyone does, and I'm quite positive you don't.  I don't post on shit I know nothing about.  Therein lieth the difference between us.


----------



## irosie91

let us clarify------pogo states that violence related to "honor"   afflicts all
hyperpatriarchal societies (virtually all societies) which is  why the shariah legal system includes a death sentence for female adultery.     The law is unrelated
to islam


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> let us clarify------pogo states that violence related to "honor"   afflicts all
> hyperpatriarchal societies (virtually all societies) which is  why the shariah legal system includes a death sentence for female adultery.     The law is unrelated
> to islam



Nooooo he doesn't state that at all.

Where did you learn to read if I might ask?


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let us clarify------pogo states that violence related to "honor"   afflicts all
> hyperpatriarchal societies (virtually all societies) which is  why the shariah legal system includes a death sentence for female adultery.     The law is unrelated
> to islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nooooo he doesn't state that at all.
> 
> Where did you learn to read if I might ask?
Click to expand...


at home------I read my brother's  Dick, Jane and Sally reading book ----he
is a year older than I am.        "See Dick run---run Dick run-----run run run."


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> let us clarify------pogo states that violence related to "honor"   afflicts all
> hyperpatriarchal societies (virtually all societies) which is  why the shariah legal system includes a death sentence for female adultery.     The law is unrelated
> to islam



see!    I got it right


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> let us clarify------pogo states that violence related to "honor"   afflicts all
> hyperpatriarchal societies (virtually all societies) which is  why the shariah legal system includes a death sentence for female adultery.     The law is unrelated
> to islam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nooooo he doesn't state that at all.
> 
> Where did you learn to read if I might ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at home------I read my brother's  Dick, Jane and Sally reading book ----he
> is a year older than I am.        "See Dick run---run Dick run-----run run run."
Click to expand...


Maybe when you grow up you can go on to Volume Two:  "Dick and Jane Parse the Subtleties of Language, Praetertransubstatiationalistically Speaking".  Also known by its subtitle, "Words Mean Shit".


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're a liar.  I've never argued what the origin of stoning is.  I don't even know that info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't play semantics, son; or trifle with the word liar for that matter. You blather on about how stoning pre-dates Islam at every chance. Now then, step into 2015 and deal with reality (*for which this thread was created*). We don't care about your meandering history lessons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again son  ---- WHO posted this?
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that my name on that post??
> 
> I have never, here or anywhere else, posted on "the origin of stoning".  I don't know what that origin is, I doubt anyone does, and I'm quite positive you don't.  I don't post on shit I know nothing about.  Therein lieth the difference between us.
Click to expand...


I'm not gonna indluge your lame mindless denials and semantics. You've posted absolutely nothing pertinent to the OP.


----------



## MaryL

Lame semantics...LAME SEMANTICS, isn't that what this whole board is about? Don't blame me for noticing.


----------



## MaryL

Islam, stones people to death, condemns  atheists, artists, apostates, free thinkers  to death, WOW, that's  a great religion there  guys, why do liberals feel so compelled to defend  THAT? Just wondering.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Islam, stones people to death, condemns  atheists, artists, apostates, free thinkers  to death, WOW, that's c a great religion there  guys, why do liberals feel so compelled to defend  THAT? Just wondering.



Nobody "defends" that.  But some of us clarify it, and who's doing it.
So sue me.


----------



## MaryL

Clarify? Don't make me laugh.Islam is a violent cult.The worse of all .


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Clarify? Don't make me laugh.Islam is a violent cult.The worse of all .



No, Islam is a religion.

Look, I'm not re-running the whole mythology thing all over again because you showed up late.  Go read  the fucking thread.


----------



## MaryL

Excuuuuus me! Islam is a koolaid drinking cult, don't need any lectures.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Excuuuuus me! Islam is a koolaid drinking cult, don't need any lectures.



K.  Bye then.


----------



## MaryL

You know, Muslim counties TAX non Muslims?Islam is intolerant of non Muslims? gays, Christians, converts, agnostics. Islam won't tolerate that . Everything  in the modern word,these  backwards twits forbid and would  destroy. That's Islam. Why do American  liberals support this bulocks?


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Signing up for a military controlled by a tyrant is not a qualifier for speaking up. Nice try, deuche.



Oh, wait, you mean Obama?  Man, you are delusional.  Fact is, you are a chicken shit coward who talks a good game about brown people you don't give a fuck about except something to blame Obama for.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Islam, stones people to death, condemns atheists, artists, apostates, free thinkers to death, WOW, that's a great religion there guys, why do liberals feel so compelled to defend THAT? Just wondering.




Where did anyone "Defend" it? 

We just wonder, why is any of this OUR business?  frankly, we wouldn't care about the Islamic World if it wasn't sitting on top of a shitload of oil.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> You know, Muslim counties TAX non Muslims?Islam is intolerant of non Muslims? gays, Christians, converts, agnostics. Islam won't tolerate that . Everything  in the modern word,these  backwards twits forbid and would  destroy. That's Islam. Why do American  liberals support this bulocks?



Perhaps Rosie will lend you her Dick and Jane book when she's done.  She done lairnt to reed reel gud from that thang.

     ​


----------



## MaryL

Ditto. smartass


----------



## MaryL

Ditto smartass.


----------



## MaryL

Since 1999. Some Muslim Lothario tried to seduce me into ISLAM. What a creepoid. There isn't anything these  assholes won't stoop to. I realized THEN before 9/11, just how dehumanizing and vile Islam is.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Since 1999. Some Muslim Lothario tried to seduce me into ISLAM. What a creepoid. There isn't anything these  assholes won't stoop to. I realized THEN before 9/11, just how dehumanizing and vile Islam is.



I agee, it would be pretty vile and dehumanizing to seduce you.  

Talking to an imaginary friend here are we?


----------



## MaryL

Some were in that deep dark snark, you have a point?


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Some were in that deep dark snark, you have a point?



The invention of the cell phone was a boon to the demented.  Now we have to pretend they're actually talking to someone.


----------



## MaryL

By the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.



Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.

Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
Good luck.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


And as expected the anti Christian Left shrug in approval of what Islam does.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Signing up for a military controlled by a tyrant is not a qualifier for speaking up. Nice try, deuche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, you mean Obama?  Man, you are delusional.  Fact is, you are a chicken shit coward who talks a good game about brown people you don't give a fuck about except something to blame Obama for.
Click to expand...


You're a chicken shit who justifies rape and oppression. What the fuck would I care what you have to say about me?


----------



## MaryL

...Move to Tehran if you are comfortable with Muslim/religious theocracy.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Since 1999. Some Muslim Lothario tried to seduce me into ISLAM. What a creepoid. There isn't anything these  assholes won't stoop to. I realized THEN before 9/11, just how dehumanizing and vile Islam is.



Wow. That was more information than I needed... 

So he tried to lure you away from your belief in Magic Sky Pixies with his belief in Magic Sky Pixies.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> You're a chicken shit who justifies rape and oppression. What the fuck would I care what you have to say about me?



I don't justify it. But if the people in that society aren't going to do anything about it, I'm just not seeing how it's my problem.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.  

Anybody home?


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
Click to expand...


Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.

In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.

Follow me?

Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?

And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.

In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.


----------



## Pogo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> And as expected the anti Christian Left shrug in approval of what Islam does.
Click to expand...



Link?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Gracie said:


> The Stoning Of Soraya. Netflix. Not streamed, gotta get the cd mailed to you. Based on a true story..just like the one in the OP. But Soraya was stoned because her husband wanted to marry a 13 year old and couldn't unless he could divorce his wife. Village said he had to have a good reason. So he and one of his friends in the village set her up. He would not support her or their children and stayed elsewhere...and when no money was available for food, she took a job with a man who lost his wife and needed a housekeeper. Then the set up was done and all he had to do was accuse her of sleeping with her employer. The employer said none of it was true, but nobody cared to listen to him. The friends of Sorayas husband got the villagers riled up that she was committing adultry and she was to be stoned as punishment. So..they did. And the husband also forced the children to throw stones as well. Until she was a bloody pulpy dead mess. After her death...he went to his wannabe child bride to marry her, but he took too long murdering his wife and she was married to someone else. So he murdered his wife for nothing.
> The movie was explicit. Graphic. Horrifying to watch. And it happens all the time over there.
> 
> Fuck that shithole and all the scumbags in it.



That was a very good movie, and many should watch it.

It happen in Iran, and was based on a true story like you stated, and this is not uncommon in that region of the world, and is the sad part of life.

Also the custom is a very old tradition, but very few religions still practice it, and should not be practiced at all.

Honor killings no matter if done by a Muslim or a Albino Space Alien Chimp are from the old savage way of life, and we live in the 21st century and not 10,000 BC.

So as some of you argue that it is not a Muslim thingy please understand that some Muslims still use the old tradition, and it is sickening, and before you point out the evil ways of Christians and Jews please note that I am not oblivious to the evil past or present within all religions, and will not deny it either.

Just my opinion.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.
> 
> In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.
> 
> Follow me?
> 
> Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?
> 
> And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.
> 
> In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.
Click to expand...


It definitely has to do with their religious beliefs.  They stone and kill homosexuals because it allegedly is against their religious beliefs, as is adultery, etc.  The point you ignore is how closely related religious beliefs and culture really are.  They usually exist hand in hand, as I'm sure you know.  Sharia law is based upon religious beliefs.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.
> 
> In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.
> 
> Follow me?
> 
> Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?
> 
> And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.
> 
> In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It definitely has to do with their religious beliefs.  They stone and kill homosexuals because it allegedly is against their religious beliefs, as is adultery, etc.  The point you ignore is how closely related religious beliefs and culture really are.  They usually exist hand in hand, as I'm sure you know.  Sharia law is based upon religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


To the best of my understanding HBV doesn't address homosexuality; it's mainly concerned with controlling women, and the social class-status of marriages.

But social attitudes toward homosexuality certainly have to do with hyperpatriarchy, the same root, and the neuroses that brings.  So again, targeting the root social cause is far more to the point than targeting a religion that is sometimes coincident, sometimes not.  That is, you could certainly argue anti-homosexual rhetoric is commonly coincident with Islam; you could not argue that it's not commonly coincident with not-Islam.  Therefore "Islam" cannot be the common root.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye the way, POGO, try this snarky crap in a Muslim country. They will track you down and arrest you and hang you on a crane. Or stone you to death, because that's how tolerant Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.
> 
> In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.
> 
> Follow me?
> 
> Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?
> 
> And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.
> 
> In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It definitely has to do with their religious beliefs.  They stone and kill homosexuals because it allegedly is against their religious beliefs, as is adultery, etc.  The point you ignore is how closely related religious beliefs and culture really are.  They usually exist hand in hand, as I'm sure you know.  Sharia law is based upon religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the best of my understanding HBV doesn't address homosexuality; it's mainly concerned with controlling women, and the social class-status of marriages.
> 
> But social attitudes toward homosexuality certainly have to do with hyperpatriarchy, the same root, and the neuroses that brings.  So again, targeting the root social cause is far more to the point than targeting a religion that is sometimes coincident, sometimes not.
Click to expand...


They work together though.  It's no coincidence.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yuh huh, gawl-lee I'm shakin'.
> 
> Well I hope someday you find your way out of this prison to which you've condemned yourself.
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.
> 
> In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.
> 
> Follow me?
> 
> Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?
> 
> And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.
> 
> In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It definitely has to do with their religious beliefs.  They stone and kill homosexuals because it allegedly is against their religious beliefs, as is adultery, etc.  The point you ignore is how closely related religious beliefs and culture really are.  They usually exist hand in hand, as I'm sure you know.  Sharia law is based upon religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the best of my understanding HBV doesn't address homosexuality; it's mainly concerned with controlling women, and the social class-status of marriages.
> 
> But social attitudes toward homosexuality certainly have to do with hyperpatriarchy, the same root, and the neuroses that brings.  So again, targeting the root social cause is far more to the point than targeting a religion that is sometimes coincident, sometimes not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They work together though.  It's no coincidence.
Click to expand...


Then how do you explain Matthew Shepard?  Laws on the books (here), past and present?  They don't have Islam in common, but they *do* have certain gender attitudes in common.  That's where it starts.

Just saying, it's always more effective to focus at a root cause, than to focus on incidentals it picks up along the way.  I'm a strong believer in addressing the disease, not just the symptoms.  Whack-a-mole is not a game that has a real point.  The moles always win.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the point is, Pogo, that you keep saying it is not related to their religious beliefs, when it most certainly is related to their religious beliefs.  The reason why they stone people and dole out these super harsh punishments is because they feel these people sinned in the eyes of their GOD, and THAT is what their holy books tell them to do with sinners.
> 
> Anybody home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion can be brought into anything as a pretext, from ordering a pizza to writing this post.  I'm not saying they don't do that.  I said it doesn't *derive from* that.
> 
> In the same way Scott Roeder blowing away George Tiller or Eric Rudolph blowing up a lesbian bar may be ascribing their religions to what they do, but that doesn't mean "the Christians made me do it" and therefore we gotta wipe out Christianity.
> 
> Follow me?
> 
> Or perhaps in a way a better analogy --- you don't like the Easter bunny so you wipe out Christianism.  Well guess what, it wasn't invented by Christianism so what was your point?
> 
> And again --- what I'm addressing here is the ancient social construct of 'honor' killing (HBV), not the technical instrument of "stoning" as a method of doing it.  Nobody knows who started that particular method AFAIK.  That seems to be geographical.  The point being, if you don't know where something derives from, then you're never going to get anything done about it.
> 
> In other words if you could press a button and "delete" Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism in one fell swoop, you would not have impacted HBV at all.  Because that's not what it's made of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It definitely has to do with their religious beliefs.  They stone and kill homosexuals because it allegedly is against their religious beliefs, as is adultery, etc.  The point you ignore is how closely related religious beliefs and culture really are.  They usually exist hand in hand, as I'm sure you know.  Sharia law is based upon religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the best of my understanding HBV doesn't address homosexuality; it's mainly concerned with controlling women, and the social class-status of marriages.
> 
> But social attitudes toward homosexuality certainly have to do with hyperpatriarchy, the same root, and the neuroses that brings.  So again, targeting the root social cause is far more to the point than targeting a religion that is sometimes coincident, sometimes not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They work together though.  It's no coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you explain Matthew Shepard?  Laws on the books (here), past and present?  They don't have Islam in common, but they *do* have certain gender attitudes in common.  That's where it starts.
> 
> Just saying, it's always more effective to focus at a root cause, than to focus on incidentals it picks up along the way.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you would bring in an isolated incident of murder by individuals.  That doesn't really mean anything at all.  Psychos exist.  

The point is that Iran is a theocracy, which means they base their laws on their religious beliefs, and that includes their executions and methods and reasons behind them.


----------



## ChrisL

The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.



Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.

If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.  

OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.  

Which do you think is more effective?

Attack the disease, not the symptom.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> I don't know why you would bring in an isolated incident of murder by individuals. That doesn't really mean anything at all. Psychos exist.



It's a handy reference that I don't need to explain for you to recognize.  The point being, the torturers of Matthew Shepard -- just for a random example --- clearly were not motivated by "Islam".  Yet they were motivated by the same sentiment.  That tells us that that sentiment is _not coming from Islam_.  Rather it's a broader dynamic that also affects people within Islam, as it also affects, in identical ways, people without it.




ChrisL said:


> The point is that Iran is a theocracy, which means they base their laws on their religious beliefs, and that includes their executions and methods and reasons behind them.



I haven't been posting about "Iran" or its laws.  At all.  Nor is the incident in the OP from Iran.  This bit seems to be off topic.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a chicken shit who justifies rape and oppression. What the fuck would I care what you have to say about me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't justify it. But if the people in that society aren't going to do anything about it, I'm just not seeing how it's my problem.
Click to expand...


That defies previous rhetoric, but I don't need to make this thread about old stuff. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; just like I'd hope you'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm against women having to live as low as dirt in these oppressive societies. This isn't about getting "brown" Americans killed. That's just f'ing stupid. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, generally speaking.


----------



## DarkFury

*Sticks and stones were the first tools of war so they pre-date ANY religion. But as in the case described they are STILL a tool of war against women,children and Christians. 

So the "color" argument is moot. Its the way they behave that SHOULD be addressed.*


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> That defies previous rhetoric, but I don't need to make this thread about old stuff. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; just like I'd hope you'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm against women having to live as low as dirt in these oppressive societies. This isn't about getting "brown" Americans killed. That's just f'ing stupid. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, generally speaking.



If you had respect for them, you wouldn't want to throw their lives away on ill-defined missions like trying to change other societies. 

As a rule, I don't give Wingnuts the benefit of the doubt because most of you are too much of dupes of the rich to know what you are arguing for, half the time.  You listen to shit on Hate Radio, waive the flag and bravely send someone else off to war.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That defies previous rhetoric, but I don't need to make this thread about old stuff. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; just like I'd hope you'd give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm against women having to live as low as dirt in these oppressive societies. This isn't about getting "brown" Americans killed. That's just f'ing stupid. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, generally speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had respect for them, you wouldn't want to throw their lives away on ill-defined missions like trying to change other societies.
> 
> As a rule, I don't give Wingnuts the benefit of the doubt because most of you are too much of dupes of the rich to know what you are arguing for, half the time.  You listen to shit on Hate Radio, waive the flag and bravely send someone else off to war.
Click to expand...


And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?



I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately. 

Many. Times. 

But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
Click to expand...


And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
Click to expand...


In May?  In a completely non-election year?

Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?


----------



## Weatherman2020

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
Click to expand...

Of course you think the war on terror ended with the death of OBL. It explains much.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In May?  In a completely non-election year?
> 
> Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?
Click to expand...


Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Weatherman2020 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you think the war on terror ended with the death of OBL. It explains much.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that, dude.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In May?  In a completely non-election year?
> 
> Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.
Click to expand...


May of 2011 was a "campaign"?

Seems to me you could hardly pick a spot on the calendar _farther away_ from a campaign.  Mid-term was over and it wasn't even an election year.

Ever heard the term "October surprise"?  Know why it's dated in October?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
Click to expand...


The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


That has always been a problem.
And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
Click to expand...


Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
Click to expand...


That it is.
We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why they do these horrible things to their own people is because they are stuck with these horrible religious beliefs that are drilled into their heads from a very young age, and this religion (Islam) has a LOT of violent interpretations, and a lot of these people agree with Sharia law, as this is what they know, and to deny that it is based upon their religious beliefs is beyond ignorant.  THAT is the reason why their culture is stuck in the dark ages, because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
Click to expand...


Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dark ages it clearly is.  But you're putting the cart before the horse.  Islam didn't bring this shit in.  And it hasn't ushered it out either.  But the same is true in India among Hindus and Sikhs.
> 
> If you have a leak in your roof over "here" -- you can patch just that leak and ignore the rest of the rotting roof where it's originating -- and then await the next leak to do the same patch job again, somehow expecting longer-lasting results.
> 
> OR.... you can replace the _roof itself _that's generating "this" leak... and "that" leak... and "the next future" leak.
> 
> Which do you think is more effective?
> 
> Attack the disease, not the symptom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
Click to expand...


And how does India do it _without _imams?

See?  That won't go away.


----------



## OnePercenter

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> The law of the land.  You know.



The problem with religion is that it leads you fanatical beliefs.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is isolated people being taught outdated ancient religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
Click to expand...


How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has always been a problem.
> And so, even more, has perpetuating ancient tribal customs that are even more outdated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
Click to expand...


You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?

How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sharia law is based on their religious beliefs.  Sharia law is Islamic law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
Click to expand...


There are Muslims in India I believe.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That it is.
> We should also note that oil, coal, and natural gas are Colorado's chief mined products, followed by sand and gravel, gold, molybdenum and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, silver, and zinc, granite and limestone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are Muslims in India I believe.
Click to expand...


There is a minority, yes.  But when HBV happens it's generally Hindus or Sikhs.
----- Which, I hasten to add, is entirely coincidental, not causal.  Just like Islam, neither Hinduism nor Sikhism prescribes HBV or even tolerates it.

Therein lieth the point.

Nobody can be defined one-dimensionally by their religion alone.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is the belief that commands stonings and other such atrocities that we hear about happening in the ME.  It's because of ignorance, isolation and crazy religious beliefs that are hammered into their heads from the time they are just babies by their crazy imams and their rogue governments and leaders that want to, of course, put the attention on anyone else but themselves as they plunder and steal from their own people and leave them in poverty and suffering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are Muslims in India I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a minority, yes.  But when HBV happens it's generally Hindus or Sikhs.
> ----- Which, I hasten to add, is entirely coincidental, not causal.  Just like Islam, neither Hinduism nor Sikhism prescribes HBV or even tolerates it.
> 
> Therein lieth the point.
> 
> Nobody can be defined one-dimensionally by their religion alone.
Click to expand...



you made no point-----only 12-13 %  of the population of India is muslim


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does India do it _without _imams?
> 
> See?  That won't go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are Muslims in India I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a minority, yes.  But when HBV happens it's generally Hindus or Sikhs.
> ----- Which, I hasten to add, is entirely coincidental, not causal.  Just like Islam, neither Hinduism nor Sikhism prescribes HBV or even tolerates it.
> 
> Therein lieth the point.
> 
> Nobody can be defined one-dimensionally by their religion alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point-----only 12-13 %  of the population of India is muslim
Click to expand...



Exactly.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does India do what?  India doesn't have terrorists all over the world terrorizing in the name of their religious beliefs, do they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are Muslims in India I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a minority, yes.  But when HBV happens it's generally Hindus or Sikhs.
> ----- Which, I hasten to add, is entirely coincidental, not causal.  Just like Islam, neither Hinduism nor Sikhism prescribes HBV or even tolerates it.
> 
> Therein lieth the point.
> 
> Nobody can be defined one-dimensionally by their religion alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point-----only 12-13 %  of the population of India is muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


your point?     you have some actual stats.    do you know if they are at all
reliable?       Turkey has a very high rate of suicide amongst women because
that is what they call honor killings


----------



## gipper

It is a sick demented culture in so many ways.

When will big ears or anyone on the left condemn it?


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> It is a sick demented culture in so many ways.
> 
> When will big ears or anyone on the left condemn it?



Been there.  Done that.

But let's all go  and pretend not to notice.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You is quite a dancer.  Now we're on to terrorism ?
> 
> How does India manage to wallow in HBV without imams is the question.  See if we can keep a line of thought that doesn't jump off to unrelated topics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are Muslims in India I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a minority, yes.  But when HBV happens it's generally Hindus or Sikhs.
> ----- Which, I hasten to add, is entirely coincidental, not causal.  Just like Islam, neither Hinduism nor Sikhism prescribes HBV or even tolerates it.
> 
> Therein lieth the point.
> 
> Nobody can be defined one-dimensionally by their religion alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you made no point-----only 12-13 %  of the population of India is muslim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your point?     you have some actual stats.    do you know if they are at all
> reliable?       Turkey has a very high rate of suicide amongst women because
> that is what they call honor killings
Click to expand...


Stats?  Well since it's a very grey area nobody anywhere has "reliable" stats.  As you correctly note, many are reported as "suicides" or other types of murder, if they're reported at all.  But here's one I've posted many times before:  Honour Killings: India's Crying Shame

>> According to statistics from the United Nations, one in five cases of honour killing internationally every year comes from India. Of the 5000 cases reported internationally, 1000 are from India. Non-governmental organisations put the number at four times this figure. They claim it is around 20,000 cases globally every year.

While traditionally occuring in villages and smaller towns in India, the cases of 'honour killing' have been on the rise and are reported sporadically in the media.

(article goes into several cases, then goes into relevant background....)

.... All these cases have led to a new discourse on legislation. Does India acutely need a separate legislation on 'honour killing'? A proposal to that effect has been made by a study done for UNFPA on gender laws.

Voices have also been raised to reign in the 'khap panchayats', self-elected village councils comprising male village elders who perpetuate values that, in turn, covertly endorse these killings in the name of saving the 'family's honour'.  Like the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the khaps have attained notoriety by issuing diktats on dress code for women and demanding a ban on the use of cell phones by young girls and women.

In rural India and middle class urban India, the onus for upholding the family morality falls on the women in the family - the daughter, daughter-in-law, wife and mother. By daring to choose a life partner, other than the one chosen for her by her family or by committing adultery, she violates the family’s honour. Both she and her lover face death as a consequence.

...Earlier, a women’s rights group, Shakti Vahini, had petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the government to be more proactive when ‘honour killings’ are carried out.

They blamed the khap panchayats for endorsing *patriarchy*, which reinforced the subjugation of women in society and the resultant ‘honour killings’. <<​
"Patriarchy".  I keep dropping that term to deaf ears.

--- Now watch how they try to justify it:

>> The court summoned 67 representatives of the khap panchayats to explain their role in ‘honour killings’. They did that in a written reply, saying it is not they who are responsible for such killings but the families who fail to prevent their daughters and sisters and wives from interacting with men, which results in shame and ostracisation by the community.

They argued that *women who feared their male relatives* never committed such acts and therefore never had to face such consequences. In short, the khap panchayat representatives overtly defended ‘honour killings’. <<​

Get that?  They're actually saying "hey, it's not up to us, the women make us do it".  And then in the next paragraph they admit flat-out that their entire purpose is to rule through fear and intimidation.  Again ----- _patriarchy._

In effect they're terrorists, on the social-community level.


----------



## irosie91

thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable



There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.

And that's because......


as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........


IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.


----------



## sealybobo

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.


Why didn't Jesus stop them? And is she burning in hell if she heard the Jesus story and didn't get baptized?


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
Click to expand...


You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO 
MUSLIMS


----------



## rdean

American christians say stone gays - Google Search



It's a religious thing.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
Click to expand...


No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.

Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.


----------



## Pogo

>> Recently, a story appeared in Huffington Post about a 16 year old Turkish girl who was buried alive by her father and grandfather for having talked to boys.  The West rightly finds this a horrific practice. However, many in the West also misunderstand and conveniently condemn honor killing as a practice of Islam.  *The mistake with this condemnation is that Islam does not permit or condone honor killing*.  However, it is precisely this misunderstanding and ignorance that allows many in the West to participate in a climate of hate, mistrust and even the idea of war against all of Islam. 

... Fueling the charge of "crazy" in the cases of honor killing is the concept of honor.  What is honor?  Traditionally, honor in this context means one's *reputation or good name*.  The concept of honor may come from the need to be perceived as perfect in the eyes of one's community because if one's community sees a person as flawless, then perhaps so will God and they will easily enter Heaven.  Since God is such a far away concept, the instant gratification of the approval of one's neighbors or one's community of a father and his family's lifestyle and their adherence to Islam's rules becomes more immediate and in many cases is used as an indication of one's perfection in the eyes of God.  However, it should be noted this is a *centuries-old cultural practice* with, in some cases, only the slightest connection to Islam.  In many cases, honor is connected to the sexual purity of one's daughter or female family member, which is too big a topic to be examined here.

And while some in the West see honor killing as "evidence" that Islam is a bad religion, many in the East condemn the West as being a place with an evil culture where women have sex with countless numbers of men followed by countless numbers of abortions all in the name of their feminist, godless freedom with absolutely no respect for life.  And because East and West each perceive the other as having no respect for life because of their honor killings and abortions, it becomes easier for some in our respective cultures to hate the other even more. <<

(case history 1):

>> In Rana Husseini's Murder in the Name of Honor, Ms. Husseini describes an interview in a Jordanian jail she had with a young man named Sarhan who in 1999 shot his sister Yasmin because she was no longer a virgin after she had been raped by a brother-in-law.

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me.  'She made a mistake, willingly or not.  It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace.  It is like a box of apples.  If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it?  I just got rid of it.'  *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."*  He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do?  *This is how society thinks*.  Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl.  No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents.  On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men.  However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

*Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide".  It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything.  Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs.  Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​

See why I keep insisting culture is where it's at as a motivator?  Not only are laws powerless against it --- religion is too.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
Click to expand...


I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
of beer in your hand


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
> with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
> you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
> frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
> believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
> your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
> of beer in your hand
Click to expand...



People still drink beer out of CANS?   


Look, I know the facts are inconvenient to your emotional basket-case meme but ---- tough shit.  Don't want my links to what I've said?   Hey, don't click on 'em.

I will admit I've met many more Muslims than Sikhs.  Just worked out that way.  But I'm not the one trying to pin shit on either one when I know better.

And oh by the way I don't have a "local pool hall".  See, when the 1950s were over and time moved on --- I moved on too.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
> with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
> you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
> frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
> believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
> your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
> of beer in your hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People still drink beer out of CANS?
> 
> 
> Look, I know the facts are inconvenient to your emotional basket-case meme but ---- tough shit.  Don't want my links to what I've said?   Hey, don't click on 'em.
> 
> I will admit I've met many more Muslims than Sikhs.  Just worked out that way.  But I'm not the one trying to pin shit on either one when I know better.
Click to expand...


you know nothing-----some people still drink from the can or the bottle.   I have been working VERY closely with muslims and Sikhs and hindus for more than 45 years. 
Lots and lots---------working with includes knowing the very intimate details of
their lives-------lots of it legally confidential    I can ask questions that you cannot
and people can tell me things confident that   I CANNOT TELL.     Thru my husband
I have relatives who survived    Sharia cesspits-----his community lived in a land
that  BECAME  a shariah cesspit with the unfortunate advent of ISLAM   ---some 1300 years ago         They know their own lives -----and their family legacies----stuff you missed in the pool hall.    One of my best informants died a few weeks ago----
hubby's aunt------age 90-----she remembered everything.    You just do not know----not your fault-----but it is your fault that you draw conclusions based on NO INFORMATION


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
> with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
> you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
> frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
> believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
> your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
> of beer in your hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People still drink beer out of CANS?
> 
> 
> Look, I know the facts are inconvenient to your emotional basket-case meme but ---- tough shit.  Don't want my links to what I've said?   Hey, don't click on 'em.
> 
> I will admit I've met many more Muslims than Sikhs.  Just worked out that way.  But I'm not the one trying to pin shit on either one when I know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know nothing-----some people still drink from the can or the bottle.   I have been working VERY closely with muslims and Sikhs and hindus for more than 45 years.
> Lots and lots---------working with includes knowing the very intimate details of
> their lives-------lots of it legally confidential    I can ask questions that you cannot
> and people can tell me things confident that   I CANNOT TELL.     Thru my husband
> I have relatives who survived    Sharia cesspits-----his community lived in a land
> that  BECAME  a shariah cesspit with the unfortunate advent of ISLAM   ---some 1300 years ago         They know their own lives -----and their family legacies----stuff you missed in the pool hall.    One of my best informants died a few weeks ago----
> hubby's aunt------age 90-----she remembered everything.    You just do not know----not your fault-----but it is your fault that you draw conclusions based on NO INFORMATION
Click to expand...


Too bad my NO INFORMATION has links all over the place and you're reduced to anecdotes that all begin with "oh yeah?  well I know a guy...."




Well sister I happen to be the Prime Minister of HindIslamiSikhistan, and I own all those people.  I'm gonna get 'em on the phone, right now. 

Hell, you can't even read back what I posted here within the last 24 hours.  How the hell are you gonna be a reliable source for people who aren't even here?

I'm old enough to remember beer in cans.  But I've never actually drunk it out of one.

I mean ---- ewww.


----------



## gipper

Islam is a retrograde archaic barbaric religion/political ideology.

If you tell this to a leftist, you can expect he/she/it will bring up Christian acts of a thousand years ago, in an irrational effort at moral equivalence and of course, to denigrate Christians today.  CRAZY!


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
> with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
> you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
> frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
> believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
> your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
> of beer in your hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People still drink beer out of CANS?
> 
> 
> Look, I know the facts are inconvenient to your emotional basket-case meme but ---- tough shit.  Don't want my links to what I've said?   Hey, don't click on 'em.
> 
> I will admit I've met many more Muslims than Sikhs.  Just worked out that way.  But I'm not the one trying to pin shit on either one when I know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know nothing-----some people still drink from the can or the bottle.   I have been working VERY closely with muslims and Sikhs and hindus for more than 45 years.
> Lots and lots---------working with includes knowing the very intimate details of
> their lives-------lots of it legally confidential    I can ask questions that you cannot
> and people can tell me things confident that   I CANNOT TELL.     Thru my husband
> I have relatives who survived    Sharia cesspits-----his community lived in a land
> that  BECAME  a shariah cesspit with the unfortunate advent of ISLAM   ---some 1300 years ago         They know their own lives -----and their family legacies----stuff you missed in the pool hall.    One of my best informants died a few weeks ago----
> hubby's aunt------age 90-----she remembered everything.    You just do not know----not your fault-----but it is your fault that you draw conclusions based on NO INFORMATION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad my NO INFORMATION has links all over the place and you're reduced to anecdotes that all begin with "oh yeah?  well I know a guy...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sister I happen to be the Prime Minister of HindIslamiSikhistan, and I own all those people.  I'm gonna get 'em on the phone, right now.
> 
> I'm old enough to remember beer in cans.  But I've never actually drunk it out of one.
> 
> I mean ---- ewww.
Click to expand...


I never drank a beer-----I cannot get past the  "scent"

the net is full of crap------


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a marvelous idea------inform all universities that they can do away
> with their SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY  departments because
> you have DISCOVERED  that all people do the same things with equal
> frequency.         I do not play the link game with idiots like you.   I do not
> believe that you ever met a  MUSLIM ,   or  a HINDU  or a SIKH   in
> your life---------spent much time outside of the local pool hall with  a can
> of beer in your hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People still drink beer out of CANS?
> 
> 
> Look, I know the facts are inconvenient to your emotional basket-case meme but ---- tough shit.  Don't want my links to what I've said?   Hey, don't click on 'em.
> 
> I will admit I've met many more Muslims than Sikhs.  Just worked out that way.  But I'm not the one trying to pin shit on either one when I know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know nothing-----some people still drink from the can or the bottle.   I have been working VERY closely with muslims and Sikhs and hindus for more than 45 years.
> Lots and lots---------working with includes knowing the very intimate details of
> their lives-------lots of it legally confidential    I can ask questions that you cannot
> and people can tell me things confident that   I CANNOT TELL.     Thru my husband
> I have relatives who survived    Sharia cesspits-----his community lived in a land
> that  BECAME  a shariah cesspit with the unfortunate advent of ISLAM   ---some 1300 years ago         They know their own lives -----and their family legacies----stuff you missed in the pool hall.    One of my best informants died a few weeks ago----
> hubby's aunt------age 90-----she remembered everything.    You just do not know----not your fault-----but it is your fault that you draw conclusions based on NO INFORMATION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad my NO INFORMATION has links all over the place and you're reduced to anecdotes that all begin with "oh yeah?  well I know a guy...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sister I happen to be the Prime Minister of HindIslamiSikhistan, and I own all those people.  I'm gonna get 'em on the phone, right now.
> 
> I'm old enough to remember beer in cans.  But I've never actually drunk it out of one.
> 
> I mean ---- ewww.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never drank a beer-----I cannot get past the  "scent"
> 
> the net is full of crap------
Click to expand...


It's most definitely an acquired taste.  But IMHO anybody who drinks it out of a can just ain't got no propers.  Or self-respect.

'Bout the only time I have it is in a Mexican restaurant.  It just seems to go with the food.

--- Must be because they're "Catholic".


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when did I do this? And you want to talk about ill-defined; just what the hell is Obama doing in Afghanistan? Once Bush left office, you decided to stop spazzing about that. Convenient, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In May?  In a completely non-election year?
> 
> Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May of 2011 was a "campaign"?
> 
> Seems to me you could hardly pick a spot on the calendar _farther away_ from a campaign.  Mid-term was over and it wasn't even an election year.
> 
> Ever heard the term "October surprise"?  Know why it's dated in October?
Click to expand...


2012 starts in 2011. It's 2015 now and we've seen how much campaigning for a 2016 election? Don't act like you don't know this stuff. This is frankly why people don't like you. You're deliberately dense.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said many times here I think we need to pull out of Afghanistan immediately.
> 
> Many. Times.
> 
> But at least Obama did what Bush couldn't do.  He killed Bin Laden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In May?  In a completely non-election year?
> 
> Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May of 2011 was a "campaign"?
> 
> Seems to me you could hardly pick a spot on the calendar _farther away_ from a campaign.  Mid-term was over and it wasn't even an election year.
> 
> Ever heard the term "October surprise"?  Know why it's dated in October?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2012 starts in 2011. It's 2015 now and we've seen how much campaigning for a 2016 election? Don't act like you don't know this stuff. This is frankly why people don't like you. You're deliberately dense.
Click to expand...


You don't pull a stunt a fucking year and a half out when it will fade into the memory hole.  You pull it out in October, when you need it.

Holy shit, the elementary shit that has to be taken by the hand and explained around here....


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've said many times that I'm not a Bush fan. Bush didn't kill OBL to keep the military complex in full swing; for that same reason neither did Obama for a while. The only reason he did is that he needed an election bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In May?  In a completely non-election year?
> 
> Are you saying The O'bama can't read a calendar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May of 2011 was a "campaign"?
> 
> Seems to me you could hardly pick a spot on the calendar _farther away_ from a campaign.  Mid-term was over and it wasn't even an election year.
> 
> Ever heard the term "October surprise"?  Know why it's dated in October?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2012 starts in 2011. It's 2015 now and we've seen how much campaigning for a 2016 election? Don't act like you don't know this stuff. This is frankly why people don't like you. You're deliberately dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't pull a stunt a fucking year and a half out when it will fade into the memory hole.  You pull it out in October, when you need it.
> 
> Holy shit, the elementary shit that has to be taken by the hand and explained around here....
Click to expand...


Well, Obama did. And he got all the juice out of that that he could.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.



Except he totally did.  

Bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive!!!


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> It is a sick demented culture in so many ways.
> 
> When will big ears or anyone on the left condemn it?



Why should they?  Frankly, maybe a dozen people in backwaters do things like this.. 

Compared to 33,000 Americans who die of gun violence every year, but don't go taking my guns. The founding father and Jesus wanted us to have guns.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Islam is a retrograde archaic barbaric religion/political ideology.
> 
> If you tell this to a leftist, you can expect he/she/it will bring up Christian acts of a thousand years ago, in an irrational effort at moral equivalence and of course, to denigrate Christians today.  CRAZY!



Christians are doing barbaric things today.  Christians did barbaric things in the last century. 

Why is stoning a woman to death "Barbaric", but carpet bombing a city "Civilized"?


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is a retrograde archaic barbaric religion/political ideology.
> 
> If you tell this to a leftist, you can expect he/she/it will bring up Christian acts of a thousand years ago, in an irrational effort at moral equivalence and of course, to denigrate Christians today.  CRAZY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are doing barbaric things today.  Christians did barbaric things in the last century.
> 
> Why is stoning a woman to death "Barbaric", but carpet bombing a city "Civilized"?
Click to expand...

Well Joey...you are a prefect example.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
Click to expand...


Not really though, and you know this.  Islam is a big problem in the world.  You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want.  I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent.  Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides.  It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks   pogo     I did not notice any mention of-----"mostly Sikhs and hindus"   India has a huge population--------and the stats are completely unreliable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a good reason you didn't notice -- and they didn't print -- any mention of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or any other religion.
> 
> And that's because......
> 
> 
> as I've been drilling into heads from the beginning..........
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT A FUCKING RELIGIOUS RITUAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made no point-----YOU specifically claimed   HINDUS DO IT MORE THAN DO
> MUSLIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.  I specifically said that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, nonreligious and followers of other religions all do it, and that NONE of them do so because their religion tells them to.
> 
> Don't try to put words in my mouth.  I can LINK what I said.  You cannot link what you pretend I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this.  Islam is a big problem in the world.  You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want.  I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent.  Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides.  It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
Click to expand...


You continue to note co-incidences.  That's not what I've been talking about -- I've been examining _causations_, which is much more relevant.  I've shown myriad examples demonstrating both *cultural* roots of HBV *and *commonalities that exist across multiple religions, _eliminating any one of them as a source.  No one _has shown how HBV has any religious function in any religion at all.

Yet another analogy -- without looking it up I'd say "we" (the "Judeo-Christian" world) have a lot more golf courses than the "Islamic" world.  Does that mean playing golf is some kind of "Christian" thing?

Or is it cherrypicking one co-incidence, one that is in fact irrelevant, and inferring that a causation must exist?


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is a retrograde archaic barbaric religion/political ideology.
> 
> If you tell this to a leftist, you can expect he/she/it will bring up Christian acts of a thousand years ago, in an irrational effort at moral equivalence and of course, to denigrate Christians today.  CRAZY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are doing barbaric things today.  Christians did barbaric things in the last century.
> 
> Why is stoning a woman to death "Barbaric", but carpet bombing a city "Civilized"?
Click to expand...


-- because making bombs creates jobs....


----------



## Roudy

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'



Islam, where brain cells go to die.


----------



## Roudy

Muslim propagandist: "so? We have the death penalty here in the US too?"


----------



## Pogo

Roudy said:


> Muslim propagandist: "so? We have the death penalty here in the US too?"



That must make, say, the electric chair and the guillotine "Christian" inventions huh?

Them Christianists are such barbarians.  Who else would come up with the idea of generating electricity and then pumping it through a human body to kill it.....


----------



## Roudy

Pogo said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim propagandist: "so? We have the death penalty here in the US too?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must make, say, the electric chair and the guillotine "Christian" inventions huh?
> 
> Them Christianists are such barbarians.  Who else would come up with the idea of generating electricity and then pumping it through a human body to kill it.....
Click to expand...

Yup, let's learn from Muslims and electrocute and / or hang all adulterers, pot smokers , thieves, and gays. Just imagine the TV ratings it would get if they carried it live like they do back there.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just before his campaign got underway; he needed the talking point. He certainly couldn't run on the myth that he saved us from a depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he totally did.
> 
> Bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive!!!
Click to expand...


 Simpletons.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.



So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided. 

Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people? 

Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so. 

The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
Click to expand...

You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.

Joey you need go get your head examined.

The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
Click to expand...


--- and stoning ain't "Muslim".

Get it?


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...


today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
Click to expand...



John 8.
Check the date.
Centuries before Islam was create -d.

See also OT:
Exodus 19:13
Numbers 15:32–36
Leviticus 20:2-5 ... 13 ... 27 and 24:10-16
Deuteronomy 13:7-12 .... 17:2-7 ... 21:18-21 ... 22:13-21 ... 22:23-24 ... 22:25-27

All of which would be centuries-to-millennia before Muhammad even existed.

Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
Click to expand...


right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code. 
The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
Click to expand...



Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.

And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.

DEAL with it.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
Click to expand...


Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL 
IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
> shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
> the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
> of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL
> IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
> in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
> Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law
Click to expand...


Social castes have nothing to do with religions.  That's why they're *social* castes.  NONE of this HBV shit --- OR FGM -- is prescribed or sanctioned by Islam or any other religion. 

I've already posted myriad links backing that up throughout this thread and earlier ones -- you have linked NOTHING.  That therefore is what your mythology is worth.

And yes, "we".  Other posters besides you and I have set this bullshit straight before.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
> shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
> the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
> of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL
> IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
> in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
> Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social castes have nothing to do with religions.  That's why they're *social* castes.  NONE of this HBV shit --- OR FGM -- is prescribed or sanctioned by Islam or any other religion.
> 
> I've already posted myriad links backing that up throughout this thread and earlier ones -- you have linked NOTHING.  That therefore is what your mythology is worth.
> 
> And yes, "we".  Other posters besides you and I have set this bullshit straight before.
Click to expand...


What Pogo?
irosie91 made it VERY clear her own husband went through this type of political oppression by CLASS

You can call it SOCIAL or RELIGIOUS or cultural conditioning that caused it.

but the suffering and damage and division that results came out the same.

Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.
Why haggle over TERMS and whether to "call this social religious or political"

oppression is oppression. Clearly the problem in China and other countries is when the
collective govt becomes mitilarized, ruling by force, and not allowing for equal protection
of due process, free choice. etc.

Whether this is blamed on "religion, culture or politics," the ABUSIVE class/caste division has REAL
effects, and irosie91's husband came out of that.

I agree where you and irosie91 would all stand against abuse, but see no benefit in arguing
whose experiences or expressions are more valid than others.  We could argue all day and all night whether "honor killings" are caused by religion, culture, politics or sexism
but that doesn't change the cases of people dying from that, when it DOES happen.
The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse 
"social" patterns or conditioning comes from.  Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.



Not the Christian thing to do?   George W. Bush thought it was. 

George Bush: 'God told me  to end the tyranny in Iraq'

*George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."*


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Christian thing to do?   George W. Bush thought it was.
> 
> George Bush: 'God told me  to end the tyranny in Iraq'
> 
> *George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
> 
> Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> 
> One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
> 
> Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."*
Click to expand...


Dear JoeB131 and gipper
Yes and No
True Christianity is the spirit of Restorative Justice
You can see where people mix Restorative Justice with Retributive. We cross the line all the time,
we're human and we go all over the place.

Extreme Terrorists, Zionists and militant Nationalists/Nazi's may be visibly invoking "Retribution"

But many people saw Bush's campaigns as more retributive than restorative.

Same with Obama who basically declared war on conservatives as the enemy.
That's not restoring relations, that's inciting people to go on the attack as a defense mechanism.

Both Presidents have crossed the line.
Both claim to be Christian but are questioned as to
what is consistent with law.  What is Constitutional and respecting the law,
and what is "overreaching" and abusing executive power to make political statements.
Both Presidents have crossed the line and been accused of abusing executive office.

Both have played politics, for right or wrong reasons,
at the expense of Constitutional checks and limits
and the rights and costs of the taxpaying public and others affected by such policies.

To err is human, to forgive divine
and to correct problems is what it means to put Christian
faith into practice, where there is BOTH forgiveness AND correction. 
As well as restitution needed to  RESTORE good faith relations, peace and justice.
Neither President has following and inspired this in full, but both have divided the
nation by party. So we have yet to fully unite in Christ or by Conscience 
as even Dr. King envisioned.  We're not there yet, but the process will not
stop until we conquer this learning curve, unite and correct all these problems together.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Christian thing to do?   George W. Bush thought it was.
> 
> George Bush: 'God told me  to end the tyranny in Iraq'
> 
> *George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
> 
> Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> 
> One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
> 
> Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."*
Click to expand...

So W is your guide.  The US bombings are the result of a Christian POTUS..  Really?

What are all the bombings committed by your beloved BO and Bubba?   

You can't be this ignorant Joey...and do you really think your handlers at the DNC believe this crap?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...


It is now!  I'm quite sure they are the largest "group" to be actually performing ancient holy book rituals.  They are wrong and they are out of control . . . obviously.


----------



## gipper

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who waWhereto take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is now!  I'm quite sure they are the largest "group" to be actually performing ancient holy book rituals.  They are wrong and they are out of control . . . obviously.
Click to expand...

Stoning women for adultery has always been part of Muslim law.  Funny how the man gets off easy in comparison.

Where are the feminists?


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> today------in the 21st century-------the countries which include  ON THE BOOKS----
> a criminal penalty for adultery being stoning to death are  ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES    which are adherent  to  ISLAMIC LAW.    This fact makes
> stoning   ISLAMIC      get it?       Death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery
> is  ISLAMIC  100 %       get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
> shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
> the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
> of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL
> IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
> in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
> Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social castes have nothing to do with religions.  That's why they're *social* castes.  NONE of this HBV shit --- OR FGM -- is prescribed or sanctioned by Islam or any other religion.
> 
> I've already posted myriad links backing that up throughout this thread and earlier ones -- you have linked NOTHING.  That therefore is what your mythology is worth.
> 
> And yes, "we".  Other posters besides you and I have set this bullshit straight before.
Click to expand...


social castes are described and prescribed in ANCIENT HINDU scriptural writings----  Poor Pogo never encountered the Bhagavad gita.      The concept of designation of non muslims as a caste is described in the koran/hadiths and is a prominent aspect  of shariah law.    Pogo's statement is utterly idiotic.    One of my best friends in college was a Brahmin from West Bengal-------so you know where West Bengal is,  pogo dear-------do you know anything?


----------



## irosie91

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really though, and you know this. Islam is a big problem in the world. You can stick your head in the sand and deny the facts all you want. I'm quite sure that there are no other religions where this kind of stuff is SO prominent. Killing homosexuals, stoning women, taking child brides. It does happen in other places that are not predominantly Muslim, but in most places where this stuff is happening regularly is in MUSLIM communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you the same question I asked "Gipper" and he avoided.
> 
> Why is it "barbaric" to stone some woman to death, but it's considered "Civilized" to carpet bomb a city and kill thousands of people?
> 
> Islam is a problem for the One Percent that want to take their shit and not pay them for it. It's a problem for the Zionist who wants to take someone else's land because his magic sky fairy said so.
> 
> The rest of us, not so much.  We stay on OUR side of the planet, they'll stay on theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think the US gov, which you adore, bombs people because they think that is the Christian thing to do...like Muslims think stoning is the right thing.
> 
> Joey you need go get your head examined.
> 
> The US gov, which you love, is not Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- and stoning ain't "Muslim".
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is now!  I'm quite sure they are the largest "group" to be actually performing ancient holy book rituals.  They are wrong and they are out of control . . . obviously.
Click to expand...


muslims  ALMOST the only group using stoning as a means of execution----
I know of no other legal code that prescribes execution for adultery or which so
LOOSELY  described adultery.      Even unmarried women can be accused of enough sexual license to be STONED


----------



## Uncensored2008

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.



What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?


----------



## irosie91

Uncensored2008 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
Click to expand...


the "give unto ceasar"   stuff in the  NT   was thrown in to justify  ROMAN EMPIRE 
EXPLOITATION   ------the romans were intensely imperialistic and demanded tribute
from all the people they conquered and oppressed---------the idea of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"    project was to convince the conquered that they should bow
down to   "HOLY ROMAN"--------because  their "god"  wanted it that way


----------



## irosie91

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 8.
> Check the date.
> Centuries before Islam was create -d.
> 
> Linear time: it's not just a good idea -- IT'S THE LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
> shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
> the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
> of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL
> IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
> in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
> Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social castes have nothing to do with religions.  That's why they're *social* castes.  NONE of this HBV shit --- OR FGM -- is prescribed or sanctioned by Islam or any other religion.
> 
> I've already posted myriad links backing that up throughout this thread and earlier ones -- you have linked NOTHING.  That therefore is what your mythology is worth.
> 
> And yes, "we".  Other posters besides you and I have set this bullshit straight before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Pogo?
> irosie91 made it VERY clear her own husband went through this type of political oppression by CLASS
> 
> You can call it SOCIAL or RELIGIOUS or cultural conditioning that caused it.
> 
> but the suffering and damage and division that results came out the same.
> 
> Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.
> Why haggle over TERMS and whether to "call this social religious or political"
> 
> oppression is oppression. Clearly the problem in China and other countries is when the
> collective govt becomes mitilarized, ruling by force, and not allowing for equal protection
> of due process, free choice. etc.
> 
> Whether this is blamed on "religion, culture or politics," the ABUSIVE class/caste division has REAL
> effects, and irosie91's husband came out of that.
> 
> I agree where you and irosie91 would all stand against abuse, but see no benefit in arguing
> whose experiences or expressions are more valid than others.  We could argue all day and all night whether "honor killings" are caused by religion, culture, politics or sexism
> but that doesn't change the cases of people dying from that, when it DOES happen.
> The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse
> "social" patterns or conditioning comes from.  Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on
Click to expand...



give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
"culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India


----------



## Uncensored2008

irosie91 said:


> give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
> the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
> "culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India



Islam is an Apartheid religion.

Fact.


----------



## irosie91

Uncensored2008 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
> the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
> "culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is an Apartheid religion.
> 
> Fact.
Click to expand...


It is also a caste society based on RELIGIOUS LAW AND CUSTOM ----koranic scholars have so determined based on the KORAN.  In fact  shariah societies cannot
function without an exploited ---"low caste"        Saudi arabia solves the problem
by using imported impoverished non muslim workers from   India,  Indonesia--etc
20%  of the residents of Saudi arabia are NON MUSLIMs who have, essentially,
no civil rights


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
> the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
> "culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is an Apartheid religion.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also a caste society based on RELIGIOUS LAW AND CUSTOM ----koranic scholars have so determined based on the KORAN.  In fact  shariah societies cannot function without an exploited ---"low caste"        Saudi arabia solves the problem
> by using imported impoverished non muslim workers from   India,  Indonesia--etc
> 20%  of the residents of Saudi arabia are NON MUSLIMs who have, essentially, no civil rights
Click to expand...


For all of which you have, as always........................................ no link.

Dismissed.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
> the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
> "culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam is an Apartheid religion.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also a caste society based on RELIGIOUS LAW AND CUSTOM ----koranic scholars have so determined based on the KORAN.  In fact  shariah societies cannot function without an exploited ---"low caste"        Saudi arabia solves the problem
> by using imported impoverished non muslim workers from   India,  Indonesia--etc
> 20%  of the residents of Saudi arabia are NON MUSLIMs who have, essentially, no civil rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all of which you have, as always........................................ no link.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...


"dismissed" ????    I have supplied expert testimony  in State courts and no judge
ever asked me for a "link"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> For all of which you have, as always........................................ no link.
> 
> Dismissed.



Do you REALLY think that demanding links proving water is wet does anything other than solidify your reputation as an utter fool with no ability to rationally discuss an issue?


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.



Of course I can.  Because it isn't "reality" --- It's hearsay on a message board.  From a source, I might add, who never backs up anything she says.  The argument "I know a guy who says ..." just does not, and cannot, stand up against centuries of recorded history.




emilynghiem said:


> The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse
> "social" patterns or conditioning comes from. Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on



Of course they're going on.  Nobody argues they're not, and nobody argues they're justified or not absolute barbarism.  I'm simply making the distinction to quell the steamroller of cherrypicked ignoramitude that deliberately foments myths for the purpose of fomenting bigotry. I believe in context.  So sue me.

There is no argument that can be made that settles bigot fantasy mythology over actual historical facts.  None.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can.  Because it isn't "reality" --- It's hearsay on a message board.  From a source, I might add, who never backs up anything she says.  The argument "I know a guy who says ..." just does not, and cannot, stand up against centuries of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse
> "social" patterns or conditioning comes from. Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're going on.  Nobody argues they're not, and nobody argues they're justified or not absolute barbarism.  I'm simply making the distinction to quell the steamroller of cherrypicked ignoramitude that deliberately foments myths for the purpose of fomenting bigotry. I believe in context.  So sue me.
> 
> There is no argument that can be made that settles bigot fantasy mythology over actual historical facts.  None.
Click to expand...


you have never state an  "HISTORIC FACT"   that supports your contention that
execution of women who commit sexual indiscretions like adultery or even
just sexual contact with men with whom they are not married is NOT supported as
ISLAMIC LAW -----by koranic scholars and so treated in shariah courts ------and
that the treatment of such actions is the SAME in every land and in the custom of ALL PEOPLE on the planet earth.      You, simply, deny and then demand PROOF OF NEGATIVES


----------



## gipper

Uncensored2008 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
Click to expand...

His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.

I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
Click to expand...


None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can.  Because it isn't "reality" --- It's hearsay on a message board.  From a source, I might add, who never backs up anything she says.  The argument "I know a guy who says ..." just does not, and cannot, stand up against centuries of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse
> "social" patterns or conditioning comes from. Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're going on.  Nobody argues they're not, and nobody argues they're justified or not absolute barbarism.  I'm simply making the distinction to quell the steamroller of cherrypicked ignoramitude that deliberately foments myths for the purpose of fomenting bigotry. I believe in context.  So sue me.
> 
> There is no argument that can be made that settles bigot fantasy mythology over actual historical facts.  None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have never state an  "HISTORIC FACT"   that supports your contention that
> execution of women who commit sexual indiscretions like adultery or even
> just sexual contact with men with whom they are not married is NOT supported as
> ISLAMIC LAW -----by koranic scholars and so treated in shariah courts ------and
> that the treatment of such actions is the SAME in every land and in the custom of ALL PEOPLE on the planet earth.      You, simply, deny and then demand PROOF OF NEGATIVES
Click to expand...


Once again.... yammeryammmer no link yammeryammer unhinged emotional crapola yammeryammer ipse dixit yammeryammeryammeryammer

Yawn.

And btw it's "a historic" not "an".  The H is aspirated.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
Click to expand...


I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
Click to expand...


Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.

In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.

I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.  That was the first bullshit story I was ever served.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
Click to expand...


No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.  That was the first bullshit story I was ever served.



So the acts of a terrorist in 1994 are the same as the ongoing proscription by a major religion, the mainstream of which is doing these acts today?

Ah Pogo, you always were a fucking liar, spewing the most insane bullshit to promote your Muslim allies.


----------



## gipper

Pogo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to you as my post clearly shows.  I was referring to Delta.


----------



## Pogo

gipper said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not referring to you as my post clearly shows.  I was referring to Delta.
Click to expand...


I see now.  None of that showed up here as I have the previous poster on Ignore (Pothead, not Delta).  
Oh well, it still applies.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Muzzie Beasts savagely murdering a young girl?
> 
> 
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
Click to expand...


I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> His post has nothing to do with the unbelievable intolerance and murder committed by Muslims, in the name of their crazy religion.  It is about denigrating Christianity.
> 
> I wonder if leftists would prefer being ruled by Muslims or Christians.  I suspect they could not tell the difference between the two religions.  CRAZY!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
Click to expand...


No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of my posts are about "denigrating" anything.  In fact they're about the opposite -- challenging denigration.  They're about the simple anthropological historical facts that discredit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
Click to expand...


I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.

An approach you might be well advised to try.

And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.


----------



## DarkFury

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
Click to expand...

*What other current day religion promotes and uses it today?
What other religion uses be-headings today?
What other religion uses rape today?*


----------



## Pogo

DarkFury said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What other current day religion promotes and uses it today?*
> *What other religion uses be-headings today?*
> *What other religion uses rape today?*
Click to expand...


No religions use that shit, Pinky.

Read the thread.  You want the gory details?  See posts 237 and 100.


----------



## emilynghiem

irosie91 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right      before islam stoning was a manner of execution ------and before
> islam execution was a penalty for adultery in many cultures and systems of
> law most likely including arabia     Islam retained that idea in its legal code.
> The greeks gave it up,   the jews gave it up,   the romans considered
> adultery by a queen to be a capital crime and muslims consider sex by a woman not owned by a man with any man to be a capital crime by Shariah law and the
> preferred method is stoning.      In the 21st century-----stoning for what muslims
> call    "illegal sex by a muslim woman"   is a capital crime ----stoning preferred ---
> today it is   MUSLIM Law and Custom as is the overwhelming majority of
> instances of   FGM  -----thus rendering FGM as muslim as  pizza is Italian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't start that FGM song and dance with me again.  We blew that out of the water before and we'lll just do it over again.
> 
> And btw remember the event in the OP that touched all this off?  Afghanistan.  Stoning is illegal there so it wasn't the law doing it.  And her "crime" was eloping, which has jack shit to do with religion, so it wasn't religion either.  It was HBV --- which is a social construct.
> 
> DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute ------you declare VICTORY    no matter what the outcome.   You 'blew' nothing out of the water nor are you a  "WE"   ------you are a ----one jerk.        In shariah adherent lands------the local IMAM does adjudicate     The young girl was executed by stoning on the order of  a QADI  who adjudicated according to
> shariah law.      Today -----in Afghanistan -----real organized political entities in
> the form of  tribes and groups are doing the  ISLAMIC THING.    The same kind
> of thing goes on in Pakistan and in  parts of Indonesia -------it is considered LEGAL
> IN THOSE LANDS.    It does on in India too but not considered legal    It goes on
> in yemen and in lost of other MUSLIM  political entities in Nigeria and in
> Uganda and Sudan    etc etc ----IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISLAMIC SHARIAH LAW--------not just "ancient custom"   or   sick "whim"-----Islamic shariah law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social castes have nothing to do with religions.  That's why they're *social* castes.  NONE of this HBV shit --- OR FGM -- is prescribed or sanctioned by Islam or any other religion.
> 
> I've already posted myriad links backing that up throughout this thread and earlier ones -- you have linked NOTHING.  That therefore is what your mythology is worth.
> 
> And yes, "we".  Other posters besides you and I have set this bullshit straight before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Pogo?
> irosie91 made it VERY clear her own husband went through this type of political oppression by CLASS
> 
> You can call it SOCIAL or RELIGIOUS or cultural conditioning that caused it.
> 
> but the suffering and damage and division that results came out the same.
> 
> Pogo you cannot argue with someone's EXPERIENCE going through this. That IS reality.
> Why haggle over TERMS and whether to "call this social religious or political"
> 
> oppression is oppression. Clearly the problem in China and other countries is when the
> collective govt becomes mitilarized, ruling by force, and not allowing for equal protection
> of due process, free choice. etc.
> 
> Whether this is blamed on "religion, culture or politics," the ABUSIVE class/caste division has REAL
> effects, and irosie91's husband came out of that.
> 
> I agree where you and irosie91 would all stand against abuse, but see no benefit in arguing
> whose experiences or expressions are more valid than others.  We could argue all day and all night whether "honor killings" are caused by religion, culture, politics or sexism
> but that doesn't change the cases of people dying from that, when it DOES happen.
> The EXPERIENCE is real, regardless if we disagree how to explain where the abuse
> "social" patterns or conditioning comes from.  Even Muslims would agree there are violations going on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> give up-----the  POGOs of the world are afraid that some people might read
> the Koran/hadiths and know something about shariah law-------and Islamic
> "culture"    which is even more a  CASTE society than is current day India
Click to expand...


I'd say you are both right and both wrong about this.
YES, the wrongs are going on.
But it is more about the political beliefs and how the govt is and is NOT set up
in these countries to be "democratically checked".

Not all Islam is about the political beliefs -- for Jihadists YES
but for many Muslims they are secular and don't mix their spiritual beliefs with politics.

Same with Christians and Constitutionalists -- some followers
DO make and enforce political beliefs, while others do not.

So you and Pogo may keep going round and round back and forth,
because you are both right in some cases and wrong in others.

there are BOTH things going on, it isn't all one way covering all cases out there!


----------



## emilynghiem

DarkFury said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What other current day religion promotes and uses it today?
> What other religion uses be-headings today?
> What other religion uses rape today?*
Click to expand...


Dear DarkFury
1. Our prison system still has prison rapes going on, with people "accepting" that as part of that system.
2. There are forced abortions. slave labor and sex trafficking, and executions without public trials going on in China. North Korea. other countries.  The gangs and cartels in Mexico use beheadings to make statements, too.

Whatever political beliefs they have, obviously, it doesn't take being Muslim to carry out these policies.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the fact there is a problem with this particular religion and the violence espoused on it's behalf speaks clearly to most.  It seems to me that these types of incidents are much more common occurrences in Muslim communities.  Lots of violence seems to follow these people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
Click to expand...


Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What other current day religion promotes and uses it today?*
> *What other religion uses be-headings today?*
> *What other religion uses rape today?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No religions use that shit, Pinky.
> 
> Read the thread.  You want the gory details?  See posts 237 and 100.
Click to expand...


But they do use those tactics.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
Click to expand...


Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there... 
Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
Click to expand...


Maybe Professor Ostrich?


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
Click to expand...


It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it. 

I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
Click to expand...


You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
Click to expand...


Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always. 
I'm lovin' it!


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
Click to expand...


You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.
Click to expand...



In dis woild ya gotta be voisatile!


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Professor Ostrich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In dis woild ya gotta be voisatile!
Click to expand...


That's hard when your head is in the sand though!    You need to come out and take a look around.  Get your head out of the sandy old books, Professor!


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gittin' better and better.  "Professor Os" (voiced S, like "oz").  I like it.
> 
> I won't have to smoke a pipe, will I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In dis woild ya gotta be voisatile!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard when your head is in the sand though!    You need to come out and take a look around.  Get your head out of the sandy old books, Professor!
Click to expand...


Is that what I should call you?   "Sandy"?

Dat looks like me, yelling at you.  "Sandy!!  Pay attention!  Don't make me light my pipe!"


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can just fake it, but you do have to wear a black sweater vest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In dis woild ya gotta be voisatile!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard when your head is in the sand though!    You need to come out and take a look around.  Get your head out of the sandy old books, Professor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I should call you?   "Sandy"?
> 
> Dat looks like me, yelling at you.  "Sandy!!  Pay attention!  Don't make me light my pipe!"
Click to expand...


  That's hilarious!  

It's supposed to be you after coming out of the sand and realizing, to your surprise, what is actually REALLY happening.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, dat's me, looking under the surface to see what's *really *going on as always.
> I'm lovin' it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a comedian too, Professor Ostrich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In dis woild ya gotta be voisatile!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hard when your head is in the sand though!    You need to come out and take a look around.  Get your head out of the sandy old books, Professor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I should call you?   "Sandy"?
> 
> Dat looks like me, yelling at you.  "Sandy!!  Pay attention!  Don't make me light my pipe!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious!
> 
> It's supposed to be you after coming out of the sand and realizing, to your surprise, what is actually REALLY happening.
Click to expand...



It _does _kinda resemble the look on my face when I read some of the posts in this place...


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> So W is your guide. The US bombings are the result of a Christian POTUS.. Really?
> 
> What are all the bombings committed by your beloved BO and Bubba?
> 
> You can't be this ignorant Joey...and do you really think your handlers at the DNC believe this crap?



Guy, Bubba and BO didn't have overwhelming support of Christians. Christians who continued to support him even after we found out he lied about WMD's.  

Bush said God told him to Invade Iraq.  Of course, God could have told him there weren't any WMD's, being omniscient and all, but never mind.  

So getting back to my questions, how is stoning someone barbaric and carpet bombing people is "civilized"?  

You still haven't answered that one because there isn't an answer.  

We are angry, murderous creatures in general, and trying to pretend that our magic sky pixie is better than their magic sky pixie and we are somehow more civilized because we kill people with billion dollar planes dropping million dollar bombs instead of some rocks you picked up along the road is just silly.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So W is your guide. The US bombings are the result of a Christian POTUS.. Really?
> 
> What are all the bombings committed by your beloved BO and Bubba?
> 
> You can't be this ignorant Joey...and do you really think your handlers at the DNC believe this crap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, Bubba and BO didn't have overwhelming support of Christians. Christians who continued to support him even after we found out he lied about WMD's.
> 
> Bush said God told him to Invade Iraq.  Of course, God could have told him there weren't any WMD's, being omniscient and all, but never mind.
> 
> So getting back to my questions, how is stoning someone barbaric and carpet bombing people is "civilized"?
> 
> You still haven't answered that one because there isn't an answer.
> 
> We are angry, murderous creatures in general, and trying to pretend that our magic sky pixie is better than their magic sky pixie and we are somehow more civilized because we kill people with billion dollar planes dropping million dollar bombs instead of some rocks you picked up along the road is just silly.
Click to expand...

Damn joey...

Your question is typical left wing kookery.  No said one said bombing is civilized dummy.  Why the strawman?

Christians don't bomb people.  Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.



Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!  

No matter how much they say they love Jesus.   

So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!
> 
> No matter how much they say they love Jesus.
> 
> So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.
Click to expand...


Christians are not the problem in our world today.  It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!
> 
> No matter how much they say they love Jesus.
> 
> So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today.  It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!
> 
> No matter how much they say they love Jesus.
> 
> So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today.  It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Don't eyeball me!  

It's true though, Pogo.    Aside from the occasional outlier, Christians aren't the ones beheading people, stoning women as a method of punishment, hanging homosexuals, committing acts of terrorism worldwide.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.



NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..  

Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.  

How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them. 

How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding. 

Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> It's true though, Pogo.  Aside from the occasional outlier, Christians aren't the ones beheading people, stoning women as a method of punishment, hanging homosexuals, committing acts of terrorism worldwide.



And niether are 99.9% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. 

Come on, how many homosexuals were hanged last year?  How many people were beheaded?  

Frankly, as a method of execution, beheading is less cruel than lethal injection.  Incidentally, the last execution in the Christian West by beheading was in - wait for it - 1977.  So our supposed "advancement" is less than my lifetime. 

Now for "Terrorism" (A word I would truly like to expunge from the English Language) again, i ask, how is it that carpet bombing isn't terrorism but planting a bomb in a pressure cooker is? 

But you guys will whine about the 14 Americans killed "terrorist" attacks last year, but the 33,000 Americans who died from gun violence- well, Gosh Darn, the Founding Fathers said we could have us our guns.


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> Frankly, as a method of execution, beheading is less cruel than lethal injection.



That's true, assuming it's done cleanly.  I may have mentioned this already -- so many threads -- but when Henry VIII had his wife Anne Boleyn beheaded (in another "honor killing"), he actually in a twisted way is considered to have showed her "mercy" --- in that his other recourse would have been burning her at the stake.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
Click to expand...


Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
Click to expand...


Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?
Click to expand...


It's common among their communities.  Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people.  They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels."  That keeps the focus off their own failings.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common among their communities.  Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people.  They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels."  That keeps the focus off their own failings.
Click to expand...


That's what Mali's doing, is it?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today. It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common among their communities.  Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people.  They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels."  That keeps the focus off their own failings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what Mali's doing, is it?
Click to expand...


I said it's common among their communities.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, Muslims are a problem because we keep sticking our dicks in their hornet's nest..
> 
> Hey, did you hear about all the terrorist attacks against Japan last year? No? Why is that? Oh, that's right, the Japs aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How about all those terrorist attacks against Chile?  Oh, that's right.  the Chileans aren't fucking with them.
> 
> How's this for a crazy idea. Stop bombing and invading their countries, stop propping up the Zionists, stop trying to find the "nice hornet' who is going to do our bidding.
> 
> Bin Laden and Saddam were both guys the CIA told Ronnie Raygun that we could "Work with".  How'd that turn out again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common among their communities.  Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people.  They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels."  That keeps the focus off their own failings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what Mali's doing, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it's common among their communities.
Click to expand...


Yuh huh. So this is going on in Azerbaijan and Indonesia and Kosovo, is it?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please.  They have been savages for a very long time now.  It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever.  They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it.  That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mooooooooooooooslims are all that, huh?  All of them?  The ones in Turkey and Tunisia and Albania and Maylasia and Morocco and golly gee just everywhere huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's common among their communities.  Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people.  They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels."  That keeps the focus off their own failings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what Mali's doing, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it's common among their communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh. So this is going on in Azerbaijan and Indonesia and Kosovo, is it?
Click to expand...


Yes, in some areas it actually does happen.


----------



## ChrisL

Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia.  Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in ‘moderate’ Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFil...ims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country.  Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFil...ims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf


----------



## Pogo

Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?



You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
Click to expand...


ALL of the countries I've listed are "Muslim countries".  And they're demonstrating your generalization broad-brush to be pretty damn silly.  As all broad-brush generalizations are except this one.

Want some more countries?  Huh?  Do ya?


----------



## irosie91

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
Click to expand...


chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing
and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as
much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls
do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the
support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely
abandoned


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
Click to expand...


Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.

--- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
Click to expand...


I studied anthropology too------I doubt you passed,   pogo dear      I took
so many elective courses in the  "SOCIAL SCIENCES"------that I could have
declared a double major-------I did not------but those social science coursea
did keep my    grade point average up so that I graduated cum laude-----
crème puff crap-----I used to get thru most of the syllabus in a weekend.    
TROBRIANDERS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC-----COMING OF AGE IN SAMOA----
pleasant light reading


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied anthropology too------I doubt you passed,   pogo dear      I took
> so many elective courses in the  "SOCIAL SCIENCES"------that I could have
> declared a double major-------I did not------but those social science coursea
> did keep my    grade point average up so that I graduated cum laude-----
> crème puff crap-----I used to get thru most of the syllabus in a weekend.
> TROBRIANDERS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC-----COMING OF AGE IN SAMOA----
> pleasant light reading
Click to expand...


4.0 actually.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
Click to expand...


of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.  
Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dem birds must be very studious.  So that's what they're doing down there...
> Can't help it -- I studied Anthropology.  That's a course you never "finish".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied anthropology too------I doubt you passed,   pogo dear      I took
> so many elective courses in the  "SOCIAL SCIENCES"------that I could have
> declared a double major-------I did not------but those social science coursea
> did keep my    grade point average up so that I graduated cum laude-----
> crème puff crap-----I used to get thru most of the syllabus in a weekend.
> TROBRIANDERS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC-----COMING OF AGE IN SAMOA----
> pleasant light reading
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4.0 actually.
Click to expand...


yeah   RIGHT----------you got   A   in both semesters of calculus----what sort of idiotic
school did you attend------there were NO   4.0 in my school------there were whole
classes in which the very highest mark was  B


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
Click to expand...


"Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.

FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.  Find it in the Koran.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?



do you have reliable information on  Kazakhstan and Dubai  and  Gambia?   
criminal and medical stats are SUPPLIED by the countries themselves----not
by  DISPASSIONATE OBSERVER      For decades Saudi arabia claimed 
"NO HIV+"     even the muslim docs laughed


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.
> 
> FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


you got a citation of videos of people marching around the rock chanting   
"DEATH TO FGM"?            get someone to get you into a large medical library--
even Saudi arabia has medical journals --------available in English.   The largest
proportion of population that undergo   FGM are Egyptian muslims----
way over 90 %    even though it has been outlawed------very few non muslims


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.
> 
> FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you got a citation of videos of people marching around the rock chanting
> "DEATH TO FGM"?            get someone to get you into a large medical library--
> even Saudi arabia has medical journals --------available in English.   The largest
> proportion of population that undergo   FGM are Egyptian muslims----
> way over 90 %    even though it has been outlawed------very few non muslims
Click to expand...


So you have nothing to offer but still more association fallacies.

What a surprise.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.
> 
> FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you got a citation of videos of people marching around the rock chanting
> "DEATH TO FGM"?            get someone to get you into a large medical library--
> even Saudi arabia has medical journals --------available in English.   The largest
> proportion of population that undergo   FGM are Egyptian muslims----
> way over 90 %    even though it has been outlawed------very few non muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have nothing.
> 
> What a surprise.
Click to expand...


I have fact and you have the  GOEBBELS method of   REPEAT THE LIE.   How many muslim ladies have you examined -----"down there"?       In American courts of law-------even minor experts like me to not have to supply computer links to support
testimony-------you know nothing but the propaganda that you promote


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.
> 
> FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.  Find it in the Koran.
Click to expand...


Fellow posters-----the big MO  ----according to accounts in the koran/hadiths-----
mentions  FGM------and advises that the procedure be moderately done----
which is good-------he never called it barbaric or advised against it-----Pogo either
never read the book or is a liar/


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye.  And "seems" might be the operative word via the lens of media.  Violence is espoused on "behalf of" every religion; that doesn't make the latter a causation of the former.  We've already noted the examples of Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolf, the Ku Klux Klan, et al.
> 
> In any case what we're doing is looking at co-incidence versus causation, and discriminating between the two.
> 
> I approach everything I see with the knowledge that popular perceptions are heavily manipulated, and get cynically inquisitive accordingly.  In other words I want to know "what's *really* behind this?"  And ironically that probably started, for me, with questioning religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
Click to expand...


Dear ChrisL
With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.

I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands

Yes, it's illegal to do this.
But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.

For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
It may be part of the old CULTURE, 
but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.

If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
I don't think this is going to solve the problem.

The conditioning goes deeper.


----------



## irosie91

emilynghiem said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
Click to expand...


Burning a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband is  DEFINITELY a rite linked to
Hinduism.    I have never met a HINDU who denied that fact.    I have known lots of educated hindus-----it has been made illegal in India and was probably restricted to
WEALTHY UPPER CLASS hindus even in ancient times.    Lots of hindu girls find it
"romantic"    There is a belief that burning together will give the couple ---eternal togetherness in the reincarnation game.     Muslims who deny that FGM  is
linked to islam are lying.     There have been a few cases of hindu wives PREVENTED from jumping on the funeral pyre who committed suicide in order
to accomplish the custom.      "BLAME"???      why say "blame"    an honest
evaluation is the answer. ---------sati   >>>HINDU      FGM  >>> islam -----out dated
and in some places illegal.    Sati is illegal and-----seems to be not done in India---
FGM is done in Pakistan-----and thruout the Islamic world ----in some places
it is illegal.      Anthropology is a real social science-----liars do it poorly


----------



## emilynghiem

irosie91 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burning a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband is  DEFINITELY a rite linked to
> Hinduism.    I have never met a HINDU who denied that fact.    I have known lots of educated hindus-----it has been made illegal in India and was probably restricted to
> WEALTHY UPPER CLASS hindus even in ancient times.    Lots of hindu girls find it
> "romantic"    There is a belief that burning together will give the couple ---eternal togetherness in the reincarnation game.     Muslims who deny that FGM  is
> linked to islam are lying.     There have been a few cases of hindu wives PREVENTED from jumping on the funeral pyre who committed suicide in order
> to accomplish the custom.      "BLAME"???      why say "blame"    an honest
> evaluation is the answer. ---------sati   >>>HINDU      FGM  >>> islam -----out dated
> and in some places illegal.    Sati is illegal and-----seems to be not done in India---
> FGM is done in Pakistan-----and thruout the Islamic world ----in some places
> it is illegal.      Anthropology is a real social science-----liars do it poorly
Click to expand...


Dear irosie91
Why is it that some of the people who BLAME the slavery of blacks in America
on either Christian or Government laws
can FORGIVE and SEPARATE the practice of slavery FROM the
proper practice of Christianity and democratic govt.

While others CANNOT and keep BLAMING Christianity and govt for having instituted slavery in the past?

Now, I happen to be one of the people who can SEPARATE
the founding and the past applications of govt that did institute slavery
FROM the CORRECT practices of Christianity and  Constitutionalism that PRECLUDE slavery
which is ultimately against Christian and Constitutional principles and spirit.

Why can't the same be done with Islam and Hinduism, even Atheism --
ANY belief system that gets targeted and blamed as a class?

Some of the traditions tied to religions may be as bad or worse
than Slavery that used to be part of American society.
If we can separate the bad from the good in that case,
why can't we do the same with any other case where this has happened?

Do we really benefit from finding an "easy target to blame this on"

Does is really do a thing to stop slavery today 
to "blame it on" Christians or Constitutional founders for practicing it in the past?

Does it stop the people doing "honor killings" by blaming all Muslims?
Doesn't that dilute and misdirect the blame, so the wrongdoers get away with it
by distracting attention from the real problems with these people justifying attacks on women?

If the solution is using spiritual healing from Christianity to cure the generational ills
causing this behavior, then let's be specific about that. Let's study and prove the cure for these ills.

Not just run around blaming and not fixing the real cause of the problems.
How is that going to solve anything?

I find it's not a simple answer of "blaming Islam" or "blaming Hinduism"

The key difference I find is whether some person or some group
takes a RETRIBUTIVE approach or a RESTORATIVE approach to justice.

The common factor I find in acts of murder, abuse, criminal attacks, etc.
is Unforgiveness expressed as RETRIBUTION, out of ILL WILL for the person/group being TARGETED.

The common factor I find in people who DON'T abuse others is
FORGIVENESS and compassion/inclusion of all people in SOLVING the root problem for mutual benefit of all.

So this is beyond just religious labels.

irosie91 you are not going to get your answer
by targeting one group, thinking finding the right label to blame it on is going to solve these problems.

OTHERWISE WE'D BE DONE BY NOW

Of course it isn't clear cut by group label.
Nobody and nothing would have to change, if all we had to do is find one group to blame it on.

Clearly the BEHAVIOR must change.

And the real key, the real wisdom here is seeing that every person
in every group has some of this divisive retributive behavior and ILL WILL
that is equally fueling the fire.  And we must ALL eliminate this ill will,
and negative projection back and forth if we are going to address and resolve the REAL problems
we share across cultures and nations.

It isn't just one group we can neatly label and blame.

The same problem must be uprooted and removed wherever it is found.

It takes all of us to do that, not just pointing to one group and demanding change outside ourselves.

Not so easy, why do you think the world suffers so much war?

People still think the problem is "that other person" "that other group" that needs to change.
So that's why we stay stuck.


----------



## irosie91

Emily-----you are playing the  "ALL"  game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists?      I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS  for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are  ALL GAME is a libel.    Libels are for lynch gangs.   For the fact that slavery was LEGAL in the USA------the USA as a group is culpable---that fact does not make ALL people at that time culpable.      As to muslims----for the fact that oppression of non muslims is LEGAL in Islamic law-----MUSLIMS as a group are culpable ----that fact does not make ALL MUSLIMS guilty of the reality of Islamic law.      ALL GERMANS are not Nazis and ALL GERMANS are not guilty of the
atrocities committed by hitler.      I consider your comments to be LIBELS  against the victims of Islamic atrocities in the present,   and Nazi atrocities in recent past,  and
Christian atrocities in the more remote past.     Those people and the people who carred the family legacy of those atrocities have a RIGHT to blame the perpetrators


----------



## emilynghiem

irosie91 said:


> Emily-----you are playing the  "ALL"  game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists?      I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS  for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are  ALL GAME is a libel.    Libels are for lynch gangs.   For the fact that slavery was LEGAL in the USA------the USA as a group is culpable---that fact does not make ALL people at that time culpable.      As to muslims----for the fact that oppression of non muslims is LEGAL in Islamic law-----MUSLIMS as a group are culpable ----that fact does not make ALL MUSLIMS guilty of the reality of Islamic law.      ALL GERMANS are not Nazis and ALL GERMANS are not guilty of the
> atrocities committed by hitler.      I consider your comments to be LIBELS  against the victims of Islamic atrocities in the present,   and Nazi atrocities in recent past,  and
> Christian atrocities in the more remote past.     Those people and the people who carred the family legacy of those atrocities have a RIGHT to blame the perpetrators



WHAT???

OMG I have met Atheists who absolutely blame Christians!!
CANNOT forgive them and CANNOT acknowledge any good at all.
People who truly believe that any good that has been accomplished by Christians
"could have been done without that" and basically attack it for being a religion as not worth the damage caused.

I went to a presentation by Louis Farakhan where he blamed
the "white man's laws" for enslaving Blacks as property and
preached to the audience that these laws were not for them but for "whites" to control others.

irosie91 it may be "just a phase" people go through
where it is easy to blame a nameable target.

But definitely, I have met people who blame religion in general
or blame Christianity specifically and can't get past that.

irosie91 again I would say any religion that isn't checked
from imposition through govt is going to cause problems.

Look at North Korea and China and their oppression of
their citizens, without due process or other protections.

is Islam to blame for that?

No, the common factor in those cases is "no check on govt power"
so that the rulers' beliefs and judgment instantly become law carried out.

Islam does not have checks built into it
the same way Christian and Constitutional laws
prescribe the process of redressing grievances and correction.

The people I know who are consistent with their Islamic faith

So you are right irosie91 that you can just blame one group for "ALL"
and expect that will solve everyone's problems.  At least you and I might agree on that..

sorry again for confusion


----------



## irosie91

emilynghiem said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the  "ALL"  game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists?      I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS  for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are  ALL GAME is a libel.    Libels are for lynch gangs.   For the fact that slavery was LEGAL in the USA------the USA as a group is culpable---that fact does not make ALL people at that time culpable.      As to muslims----for the fact that oppression of non muslims is LEGAL in Islamic law-----MUSLIMS as a group are culpable ----that fact does not make ALL MUSLIMS guilty of the reality of Islamic law.      ALL GERMANS are not Nazis and ALL GERMANS are not guilty of the
> atrocities committed by hitler.      I consider your comments to be LIBELS  against the victims of Islamic atrocities in the present,   and Nazi atrocities in recent past,  and
> Christian atrocities in the more remote past.     Those people and the people who carred the family legacy of those atrocities have a RIGHT to blame the perpetrators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT???
> 
> OMG I have met Atheists who absolutely blame Christians!!
> CANNOT forgive them and CANNOT acknowledge any good at all.
> People who truly believe that any good that has been accomplished by Christians
> "could have been done without that" and basically attack it for being a religion as not worth the damage caused.
> 
> I went to a presentation by Louis Farakhan where he blamed
> the "white man's laws" for enslaving Blacks as property and
> preached to the audience that these laws were not for them but for "whites" to control others.
> 
> irosie91 it may be "just a phase" people go through
> where it is easy to blame a nameable target.
> 
> But definitely, I have met people who blame religion in general
> or blame Christianity specifically and can't get past that.
> 
> irosie91 again I would say any religion that isn't checked
> from imposition through govt is going to cause problems.
> 
> Look at North Korea and China and their oppression of
> their citizens, without due process or other protections.
> 
> is Islam to blame for that?
> 
> No, the common factor in those cases is "no check on govt power"
> so that the rulers' beliefs and judgment instantly become law carried out.
> 
> Islam does not have checks built into it
> the same way Christian and Constitutional laws
> prescribe the process of redressing grievances and correction.
> 
> The people I know who are consistent with their Islamic faith
> 
> So you are right irosie91 that you can just blame one group for "ALL"
> and expect that will solve everyone's problems.  At least you and I might agree on that..
> 
> sorry again for confusion
Click to expand...


I am not confused------you are.      Islam is an ideology that includes a legal system
which  is quite equivalent to that of Christians in general and equivalent to the
judicial system of Judaism.    In fact its legal system is quite intricate and logical. 
Its laws stink to high heaven as did the laws of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and other forms of Christianity for most of the history of Christianity.     The law of the
Christian church  ----virtually mandated the INQUISITION----and in the USA  ---
the major sects certainly did consider slavery to be legal.    I have no idea what
Jesus thought of slavery-----but  PAUL  supported it which according to the NT
was  based on his DREAM REVELATIONS.    Jewish law was equivocal on slavery-----allowing but limiting it and rejecting chattel slavery ----later  on it became outlawed  sorta effectively----almost.    (by rabbinical edict which means some people could have had a chance to reject HIS ideas).    You are trying to claim  ---
NO BLAME for evil


----------



## emilynghiem

irosie91 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the  "ALL"  game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists?      I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS  for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are  ALL GAME is a libel.    Libels are for lynch gangs.   For the fact that slavery was LEGAL in the USA------the USA as a group is culpable---that fact does not make ALL people at that time culpable.      As to muslims----for the fact that oppression of non muslims is LEGAL in Islamic law-----MUSLIMS as a group are culpable ----that fact does not make ALL MUSLIMS guilty of the reality of Islamic law.      ALL GERMANS are not Nazis and ALL GERMANS are not guilty of the
> atrocities committed by hitler.      I consider your comments to be LIBELS  against the victims of Islamic atrocities in the present,   and Nazi atrocities in recent past,  and
> Christian atrocities in the more remote past.     Those people and the people who carred the family legacy of those atrocities have a RIGHT to blame the perpetrators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT???
> 
> OMG I have met Atheists who absolutely blame Christians!!
> CANNOT forgive them and CANNOT acknowledge any good at all.
> People who truly believe that any good that has been accomplished by Christians
> "could have been done without that" and basically attack it for being a religion as not worth the damage caused.
> 
> I went to a presentation by Louis Farakhan where he blamed
> the "white man's laws" for enslaving Blacks as property and
> preached to the audience that these laws were not for them but for "whites" to control others.
> 
> irosie91 it may be "just a phase" people go through
> where it is easy to blame a nameable target.
> 
> But definitely, I have met people who blame religion in general
> or blame Christianity specifically and can't get past that.
> 
> irosie91 again I would say any religion that isn't checked
> from imposition through govt is going to cause problems.
> 
> Look at North Korea and China and their oppression of
> their citizens, without due process or other protections.
> 
> is Islam to blame for that?
> 
> No, the common factor in those cases is "no check on govt power"
> so that the rulers' beliefs and judgment instantly become law carried out.
> 
> Islam does not have checks built into it
> the same way Christian and Constitutional laws
> prescribe the process of redressing grievances and correction.
> 
> The people I know who are consistent with their Islamic faith
> 
> So you are right irosie91 that you can just blame one group for "ALL"
> and expect that will solve everyone's problems.  At least you and I might agree on that..
> 
> sorry again for confusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused------you are.      Islam is an ideology that includes a legal system
> which  is quite equivalent to that of Christians in general and equivalent to the
> judicial system of Judaism.    In fact its legal system is quite intricate and logical.
> Its laws stink to high heaven as did the laws of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and other forms of Christianity for most of the history of Christianity.     The law of the
> Christian church  ----virtually mandated the INQUISITION----and in the USA  ---
> the major sects certainly did consider slavery to be legal.    I have no idea what
> Jesus thought of slavery-----but  PAUL  supported it which according to the NT
> was  based on his DREAM REVELATIONS.    Jewish law was equivocal on slavery-----allowing but limiting it and rejecting chattel slavery ----later  on it became outlawed  sorta effectively----almost.    (by rabbinical edict which means some people could have had a chance to reject HIS ideas).    You are trying to claim  ---
> NO BLAME for evil
Click to expand...


Dear irosie91 

No, I'm pointing to the root evil being greater than any religious label.
Not denying it, but pinpointing it more precisely.

I would AGREE with you that any "legal" system that CONFLICTS
with civil authority, due process, etc is wrongful and cannot be enforced as law.

With Islam, it depends if followers work WITH Constitutional limits on govt.

When these same Islamic beliefs are practiced
WITHIN a Christian framework -- which is also part of the Muslim teachings --
and WITH normal respect for the civil govt and authority of the country,
there is no such problem.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Please. They have been savages for a very long time now. It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever. They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it. That is why they are such an angry people.



Sister, the worst instance of savagery in the last century was carried out by Christians and Shintoists in World War II.  

Except I guess they were more advanced because they had bombers.  

Technology doesn't make you less savage.  



ChrisL said:


> It's common among their communities. Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people. They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels." That keeps the focus off their own failings.



And how is that any different than politicians in the west?  Donald Trump blames everything on the Mexicans and Chinese, and he's the frontrunner!  Are all your rationales for your bigotry going to be this lame?  

Hey, here's a question.  How many Muslims do you know, personally?  I'm going to guess, none.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You are just grasping at straws now. My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women. I cannot understand how anyone can defend that. Sickening.



57% Of Republicans Say Dismantle Constitution And Make Christianity National Religion

*A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion.*

Sickening.  Have these people actually read some of the shit in the Bible?


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> chris------the real horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing
> and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as
> much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers. Girls
> do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the
> support of their mothers-in-law. they are in many circumstances, completely
> abandoned



Yet the same rightwingers who bitch about "honor killings' are the same one who will mock black families for having a 70% out of wedlock birthrate.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!
> 
> No matter how much they say they love Jesus.
> 
> So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.
Click to expand...

You are engaging in a logical fallacy, with lots of ignorance attached and a bunch of hypocrisy.

You can't compare the murderous actions of radical Islam with the actions of an unlimited powerful state.  Radical Islam commits heinous acts because they think their religion dictates they do.  The State commits war because that is what a powerful unlimited state does...war enriches and empowers the state.  It has nothing to do with religion.  I have told you over and over war is the health of the state...this can not be refuted.  
Your hypocrisy is your love of the big unlimited omnipresent state, which commits these wars, but only if a D is in charge.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please. They have been savages for a very long time now. It's like they did well up until the middle ages and then they just completely stopped any kind of progress whatsoever. They are stagnant people who are living in the past and trying to force all of their people to do the same, and they are fighting a losing battle and they know it. That is why they are such an angry people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, the worst instance of savagery in the last century was carried out by Christians and Shintoists in World War II.
> 
> Except I guess they were more advanced because they had bombers.
> 
> Technology doesn't make you less savage.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's common among their communities. Their leaders are their own worst enemies, so of course they like to blame America for all of their own failings and their own "plundering" of their own people. They like to keep their people ignorant and focus their hatred on "the west" and the "infidels." That keeps the focus off their own failings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that any different than politicians in the west?  Donald Trump blames everything on the Mexicans and Chinese, and he's the frontrunner!  Are all your rationales for your bigotry going to be this lame?
> 
> Hey, here's a question.  How many Muslims do you know, personally?  I'm going to guess, none.
Click to expand...


We are talking about today's times.  What happened decades ago and/or hundreds and thousands of years ago is irrelevant.  Um yes, technology and education DO make for less savagery.  

What does Donald Trump have to do with this discussion?  Does Donald Trump kill people?


----------



## ChrisL

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So this is going on in Kazakhstan and Dubai and Gambia huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you have reliable information on  Kazakhstan and Dubai  and  Gambia?
> criminal and medical stats are SUPPLIED by the countries themselves----not
> by  DISPASSIONATE OBSERVER      For decades Saudi arabia claimed
> "NO HIV+"     even the muslim docs laughed
Click to expand...


Good point, and that means statistics are going to be limited based on a country's resources and abilities to gather and report such information properly and appropriately.  I would be willing to bet that many third world country statistics are not accurate at all.


----------



## ChrisL

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just grasping at straws now.  My link demonstrates that the majority of Muslims who reside in "Muslim" countries in fact do support Sharia law, including the harsh punishments doled out to women.  I cannot understand how anyone can defend that.  Sickening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chris------the real  horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers.   Girls do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the support of their mothers-in-law.       they are in many circumstances,  completely abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you're right about that, and the same is true of FGM, which is normally _performed by_ the women.
> 
> --- which both underscore everything I've noted about its roots in ancient *culture *-- not in religion.  And what I keep saying about these traditions' base in *patriarchy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course it is done by women-----it involves a NAKED GIRL-----muslim men do not
> fool around with naked girls EXCEPT to screw them.    Muslim men do not do child
> care.        The women do it with religious conviction just as they support and sometimes even participate in honor killings out of  RELIGIOIUS CONVICTION.
> Your focus on the  FIRST WHO DID IT-----is idiotic.     Muslims incorporated it
> into ISLAM  and took it to every place in which islam was either introduced or
> imposed .     You could claim  that no eating  pig is not  a religious custom too----go
> right ahead and let us know why you failed anthropology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Muslim" ain't got nuttin' to do with it.  It's --- ONCE AGAIN -- NOT A RELIGIOUS RITUAL.  And no, Muslims did not "incorporate it".  Matter of fact in Mecca it's considered pagan and barbaric.
> 
> FGM has *>NO<* repeat _*NO*_ religious function in Islam or in any other religion.  Go ahead -- try to prove me wrong.  Find it in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fellow posters-----the big MO  ----according to accounts in the koran/hadiths-----
> mentions  FGM------and advises that the procedure be moderately done----
> which is good-------he never called it barbaric or advised against it-----Pogo either
> never read the book or is a liar/
Click to expand...


Exactly, and here is a Muslim website where they are advocating for and stating that FGM is "prescribed" by Islam.  

Circumcision of girls and some doctors’ criticism thereof - islamqa.info

In the fatwa of _Dar al-Ifta’ al-Misriyyah_ (6/1986) it says: 

Thus it is clear that female circumcision is prescribed in Islam, and that it is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah and it has a good effect of moderating the individual’s behaviour. As for the opinions of doctors who say that female circumcision is harmful, these are individual opinions which are not derived from any agreed scientific basis, and they do not form an established scientific opinion. They acknowledge that the rates of cancer among circumcised men are lower than among those who are not circumcised, and some of these doctors clearly recommend that circumcision should be done by doctors and not these ignorant women, so that the operation will be safe and there will be no negative consequences.  However, medical theories about disease and the way to treat it are not fixed, rather they change with time and with ongoing research. So it is not correct to rely on them when criticizing circumcision which the Wise and All-Knowing Lawgiver has decreed in His wisdom for mankind. Experience has taught us that the wisdom behind some rulings and Sunnahs may be hidden from us. May Allaah help us all to follow the right path. End quote.


----------



## ChrisL

*Religious views on female genital mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*Historical religious views[edit]*
The historical religious view of Islam, on FGM, varies with the school of Islamic jurisprudence:[21]


The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be _wajib_ (obligatory).[22]
The Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be _makrumah_ (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[23]
The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be _sunnah_ (optional) and preferred.[23]
The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be _sunnah_ (preferred).[23]


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> You can't compare the murderous actions of radical Islam with the actions of an unlimited powerful state. Radical Islam commits heinous acts because they think their religion dictates they do. The State commits war because that is what a powerful unlimited state does...war enriches and empowers the state. It has nothing to do with religion. I have told you over and over war is the health of the state...this can not be refuted.
> Your hypocrisy is your love of the big unlimited omnipresent state, which commits these wars, but only if a D is in charge.



Guy, you can't go repeating libertarian crazy and expect to be taken seriously.  

The state is the people.  When we get into wars, it is usually with the enthusiastic support of the people.  We re-elected Bush even though it was pretty clear he lied about WMD's.  Blaming "the state" for what we do is just silly.  The state is us.  i know this is hard for you to grasp, living in whatever basement you are living in without steady employment.  

If Islam is Radical, it's radical because of two centuries of the Christian West sticking their dicks in their hornet's nest.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compare the murderous actions of radical Islam with the actions of an unlimited powerful state. Radical Islam commits heinous acts because they think their religion dictates they do. The State commits war because that is what a powerful unlimited state does...war enriches and empowers the state. It has nothing to do with religion. I have told you over and over war is the health of the state...this can not be refuted.
> Your hypocrisy is your love of the big unlimited omnipresent state, which commits these wars, but only if a D is in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can't go repeating libertarian crazy and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> The state is the people.  When we get into wars, it is usually with the enthusiastic support of the people.  We re-elected Bush even though it was pretty clear he lied about WMD's.  Blaming "the state" for what we do is just silly.  The state is us.  i know this is hard for you to grasp, living in whatever basement you are living in without steady employment.
> 
> If Islam is Radical, it's radical because of two centuries of the Christian West sticking their dicks in their hornet's nest.
Click to expand...


No, they are "radical" because they haven't changed or progressed in past thousands of years.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compare the murderous actions of radical Islam with the actions of an unlimited powerful state. Radical Islam commits heinous acts because they think their religion dictates they do. The State commits war because that is what a powerful unlimited state does...war enriches and empowers the state. It has nothing to do with religion. I have told you over and over war is the health of the state...this can not be refuted.
> Your hypocrisy is your love of the big unlimited omnipresent state, which commits these wars, but only if a D is in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can't go repeating libertarian crazy and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> The state is the people.  When we get into wars, it is usually with the enthusiastic support of the people.  We re-elected Bush even though it was pretty clear he lied about WMD's.  Blaming "the state" for what we do is just silly.  The state is us.  i know this is hard for you to grasp, living in whatever basement you are living in without steady employment.
> 
> If Islam is Radical, it's radical because of two centuries of the Christian West sticking their dicks in their hornet's nest.
Click to expand...

Damn Joey you really are losing it.

The State is the people...WTF!!!...you really believe our government is of the people, by the people, for the people???....oh please.  What complete and utterly BS.  

The state is for, by and of the elites....and the elites are NOT Christian fundamentalists.

Lets stick to the topic at hand...your silly belief that Muslims stoning a women for adultery is the same thing as the American Christian state's bombing people, but only if an R is POTUS.


----------



## irosie91

emilynghiem said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the  "ALL"  game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists?      I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS  for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are  ALL GAME is a libel.    Libels are for lynch gangs.   For the fact that slavery was LEGAL in the USA------the USA as a group is culpable---that fact does not make ALL people at that time culpable.      As to muslims----for the fact that oppression of non muslims is LEGAL in Islamic law-----MUSLIMS as a group are culpable ----that fact does not make ALL MUSLIMS guilty of the reality of Islamic law.      ALL GERMANS are not Nazis and ALL GERMANS are not guilty of the
> atrocities committed by hitler.      I consider your comments to be LIBELS  against the victims of Islamic atrocities in the present,   and Nazi atrocities in recent past,  and
> Christian atrocities in the more remote past.     Those people and the people who carred the family legacy of those atrocities have a RIGHT to blame the perpetrators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT???
> 
> OMG I have met Atheists who absolutely blame Christians!!
> CANNOT forgive them and CANNOT acknowledge any good at all.
> People who truly believe that any good that has been accomplished by Christians
> "could have been done without that" and basically attack it for being a religion as not worth the damage caused.
> 
> I went to a presentation by Louis Farakhan where he blamed
> the "white man's laws" for enslaving Blacks as property and
> preached to the audience that these laws were not for them but for "whites" to control others.
> 
> irosie91 it may be "just a phase" people go through
> where it is easy to blame a nameable target.
> 
> But definitely, I have met people who blame religion in general
> or blame Christianity specifically and can't get past that.
> 
> irosie91 again I would say any religion that isn't checked
> from imposition through govt is going to cause problems.
> 
> Look at North Korea and China and their oppression of
> their citizens, without due process or other protections.
> 
> is Islam to blame for that?
> 
> No, the common factor in those cases is "no check on govt power"
> so that the rulers' beliefs and judgment instantly become law carried out.
> 
> Islam does not have checks built into it
> the same way Christian and Constitutional laws
> prescribe the process of redressing grievances and correction.
> 
> The people I know who are consistent with their Islamic faith
> 
> So you are right irosie91 that you can just blame one group for "ALL"
> and expect that will solve everyone's problems.  At least you and I might agree on that..
> 
> sorry again for confusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused------you are.      Islam is an ideology that includes a legal system
> which  is quite equivalent to that of Christians in general and equivalent to the
> judicial system of Judaism.    In fact its legal system is quite intricate and logical.
> Its laws stink to high heaven as did the laws of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and other forms of Christianity for most of the history of Christianity.     The law of the
> Christian church  ----virtually mandated the INQUISITION----and in the USA  ---
> the major sects certainly did consider slavery to be legal.    I have no idea what
> Jesus thought of slavery-----but  PAUL  supported it which according to the NT
> was  based on his DREAM REVELATIONS.    Jewish law was equivocal on slavery-----allowing but limiting it and rejecting chattel slavery ----later  on it became outlawed  sorta effectively----almost.    (by rabbinical edict which means some people could have had a chance to reject HIS ideas).    You are trying to claim  ---
> NO BLAME for evil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear irosie91
> 
> No, I'm pointing to the root evil being greater than any religious label.
> Not denying it, but pinpointing it more precisely.
> 
> I would AGREE with you that any "legal" system that CONFLICTS
> with civil authority, due process, etc is wrongful and cannot be enforced as law.
> 
> With Islam, it depends if followers work WITH Constitutional limits on govt.
> 
> When these same Islamic beliefs are practiced
> WITHIN a Christian framework -- which is also part of the Muslim teachings --
> and WITH normal respect for the civil govt and authority of the country,
> there is no such problem.
Click to expand...


In that case,  Emily-----you remain confused.   Islamic law is---if anything  ---VERY CLEAR AND LOGICAL  and it simply cannot function within the constitution of
the USA  or even the  UN UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF MAN.     For that reason several Islamic states reject the  UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF MAN  thing that the UN proposed.    It is absolutely clear in shariah law that non muslims are INFERIOR
before the law and their rights are absolutely not equal to those of muslims.   I will give you an example-----the testimony of a non muslim against a muslim is utterly
invalid in a shariah court.     In all cases of legal decision----- both islam and
the individual muslim  WINS.   In fact the only way for a non muslim to bring a case
before a shariah court would be for the muslim chieftain to be the aggrieved party. 
Ie----the muslim chieftain can complain-------"that muslim kid over there raped
this Christian who is one of MY CHRISTIANS----I want compensation".     Depending on how important that Christian is to that muslim chieftain or
her family-----the matter might be an issue before the court.   Another example----
were a muslim to kill a Christian man------the penalty would be something like
a payment to the family of the murdered person of   1/4  the value of the life of a muslim man.    Say  "thanks"   I have given you a lesson in shariah law.    My very own husband was born in a shariah cesspit.    Here is another example of ISLAMIC LAW-------you might remember the journalist  Daneil Pearl who was visiting
Pakistan and was grabbed and his throat slit -------The deed was video taped
by the throat slitters.    You might ask "way"?     easy-----for DEFENSE-----Daniel
Pearl  stated   "I am a jew and my parents are jews"-----thus making the murder
legal in Islamic law since Daniel was not a DHIMMI------he was a jew and not
under the "PROTECTION"   (you can read that enslaved)  by a muslim.   He had
no status in Islamic law------the only way he could have saved himself would be
by declaring  "I WANT TO BE A MUSLIM"     Sorry for the length----there is more---
In order to make the world happy---Pakistan convened a special NON SHARIAH
court to try the murderers------they were sentenced to death----but to make the
muslims happy -----they were never executed


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> chris------the real horror is that when it comes to stuff like honor killing
> and stoning for sex crimes for women------the people who support it just as
> much as the men are the WOMEN------including the mothers. Girls
> do not get the support of their own mothers and certainly not the
> support of their mothers-in-law. they are in many circumstances, completely
> abandoned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the same rightwingers who bitch about "honor killings' are the same one who will mock black families for having a 70% out of wedlock birthrate.
Click to expand...


a completely unrelated issue,   Joe dear.     In fact black mothers are very supportive
of their daughters -----in the USA


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not discriminating.  Looking at life through the lens called "reality."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
Click to expand...


Thank you Emily.  I've already pointed this out, linked to scholars, linked to historical evidence, and linked to case histories all indicating the same thing.  But self-delusion is apparently powerful stuff.

I think it's important to get this right so that the disease, not the symptom, gets addressed.  Otherwise, left to the emotion-based mythology, all we do is play wack-a-mole, and that's a game that has no end.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Emily.  I've already pointed this out, linked to scholars, linked to historical evidence, and linked to case histories all indicating the same thing.  But self-delusion is apparently powerful stuff.
> 
> I think it's important to get this right so that the disease, not the symptom, gets addressed.  Otherwise, left to the emotion-based mythology, all we do is play wack-a-mole, and that's a game that has no end.
Click to expand...


yes-----getting it RIGHT is a good idea.        HONOR BASED VIOLENCE ----is not the same as    ADJUDICATION IN A COURT OF LAW -------Pogo is fumfering


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burning a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband is  DEFINITELY a rite linked to
> Hinduism.    I have never met a HINDU who denied that fact.    I have known lots of educated hindus-----it has been made illegal in India and was probably restricted to
> WEALTHY UPPER CLASS hindus even in ancient times.    Lots of hindu girls find it
> "romantic"    There is a belief that burning together will give the couple ---eternal togetherness in the reincarnation game.     Muslims who deny that FGM  is
> linked to islam are lying.     There have been a few cases of hindu wives PREVENTED from jumping on the funeral pyre who committed suicide in order
> to accomplish the custom.      "BLAME"???      why say "blame"    an honest
> evaluation is the answer. ---------sati   >>>HINDU      FGM  >>> islam -----out dated
> and in some places illegal.    Sati is illegal and-----seems to be not done in India---
> FGM is done in Pakistan-----and thruout the Islamic world ----in some places
> it is illegal.      Anthropology is a real social science-----liars do it poorly
Click to expand...


Complete bullshit.  With the customary lack of any link at all.

Part the first:  castes

>> Some scholars of caste have considered _jāti_ to have its basis in religion, assuming that in India the sacred elements of life envelope the secular aspects; for example, the anthropologist Louis Dumont described the ritual rankings that exist within the _jāti_ system as being based on the concepts of religious purity and pollution.[25] This view has been disputed by other scholars, who believe it to be a secular social phenomenon driven by the necessities of economics, politics, and sometimes also geography.[24][25][26][27]
....
_Jātis_ have existed in India among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and tribal people, and there is no clear linear order.[31] 
<< --- Caste system in India: Origins (Wiki)

--- and from the intro paragraph on that page:
>> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the collapse of Mughal era and the British colonial regime in India.[2][11] The collapse of Mughal era saw the rise of powerful men who associated themselves with kings, priests and ascetics, affirming the regal and martial form of the caste ideal, and it also reshaped many apparently casteless social groups into differentiated caste communities.[12] The British Raj furthered this development, making rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.[2][11][4][13][_page needed_][5][14] Between 1860 and 1920, the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to the upper castes. <<​-- which explains that the caste system as it exists today is partly a European-incited structure.  But again, derived from politics, not religion.

Not to mention this, from the same intro:

>> The caste system has been challenged over time by Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and many reformist movements in Hinduism.[18] However, aspects of the caste system continue to exist in India *in all these religions.*[18][19][20] <<​

Part the Second: FGM

>> The origins of the practice are unknown.[161] Its east-west, north-south distribution in Africa meets in Sudan, leading Gerry Mackie to speculate that infibulation originated with the Meroite civilization and imperial polygyny, before the rise of Islam, to increase confidence in paternity.[162]

...
The proposed circumcision of an Egyptian girl, Tathemis, is mentioned on a Greek papyrus from *163 BCE* in the British Museum:

Sometime after this, Nephoris [Tathemis's mother] defrauded me, being anxious that it was time for Tathemis to be circumcised, as is the custom among the Egyptians. She asked that I give her 1,300 drachmae ... to clothe her ... and to provide her with a marriage dowry ... if she didn't do each of these or if she did not circumcise Tathemis in the month of Mecheir, year 18 [163 BCE], she would repay me 2,400 drachmae on the spot.[164]

...
The Greek geographer Strabo (c. *64 BCE – c. 23 CE*) wrote about FGM after visiting Egypt around *25 BCE.*[n 19][n 20] The philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. *20 BCE – 50 CE)* also made reference to it: "the Egyptians by the custom of their country circumcise the marriageable youth and maid in the fourteenth (year) of their age, when the male begins to get seed, and the female to have a menstrual flow."[169] It is mentioned briefly in a work attributed to the Greek physician Galen (*129 – c. 200 CE*): "When [the clitoris] sticks out to a great extent in their young women, Egyptians consider it appropriate to cut it out."[170]

Another Greek physician, Aëtius of Amida (mid-5th to mid-6th century CE), offered more detail in book 16 of his _Sixteen Books on Medicine_, citing the physician Philomenes. The procedure was performed in case the clitoris, or _nymphê_, grew too large or triggered sexual desire when rubbing against clothing. "On this account, it seemed proper to the Egyptians to remove it before it became greatly enlarged," Aëtius wrote, "especially at that time when the girls were about to be married": <<​Once again --- linear time rears its head.  ALL of the above citations were recorded before Mohammad or Islam existed.  Moreover this cultural artifact is concentrated in Africa, and not in the greater Muslim world, including Christian nations.




>> Why would a mother be willing to have such a cruel, painful and highly risky procedure, which has no benefits for her at all performed on her daughter? The answer is often *economic*. In societies that practice FGM, daughters are an essential part of their parents “retirement plan” (which of course does not exist in most of the countries where FGM is being practices). Arranged marriages are a vital part of a family’s income, especially as the parents get older and may no longer be able to work. In societies where FGM is the norm, not mutilating one’s daughters would make it very difficult, if not impossible to marry them. This is a huge financial and social risk for a mother to take.<<  --- FGM and Poverty​
In fact it was used here and in "modern"  Europe as late as the 19th century to control pseudo-conditions like "nymphomania"  --- which is essentially also its ancient purpose in Africa. 

Once AGAIN, he said to the wilfully blind, what this all has in common is not religion or language or race -- it's _*patriarchy.  *_It's the_* social order*_ and the way it's perceived within that community's values.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs



I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...

What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Emily.  I've already pointed this out, linked to scholars, linked to historical evidence, and linked to case histories all indicating the same thing.  But self-delusion is apparently powerful stuff.
> 
> I think it's important to get this right so that the disease, not the symptom, gets addressed.  Otherwise, left to the emotion-based mythology, all we do is play wack-a-mole, and that's a game that has no end.
Click to expand...


I've already posted links proving otherwise.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am indeed.  Thangyew.  Thangyew vurra much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Emily.  I've already pointed this out, linked to scholars, linked to historical evidence, and linked to case histories all indicating the same thing.  But self-delusion is apparently powerful stuff.
> 
> I think it's important to get this right so that the disease, not the symptom, gets addressed.  Otherwise, left to the emotion-based mythology, all we do is play wack-a-mole, and that's a game that has no end.
Click to expand...


For starters, posts 361 and 362.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burning a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband is  DEFINITELY a rite linked to
> Hinduism.    I have never met a HINDU who denied that fact.    I have known lots of educated hindus-----it has been made illegal in India and was probably restricted to
> WEALTHY UPPER CLASS hindus even in ancient times.    Lots of hindu girls find it
> "romantic"    There is a belief that burning together will give the couple ---eternal togetherness in the reincarnation game.     Muslims who deny that FGM  is
> linked to islam are lying.     There have been a few cases of hindu wives PREVENTED from jumping on the funeral pyre who committed suicide in order
> to accomplish the custom.      "BLAME"???      why say "blame"    an honest
> evaluation is the answer. ---------sati   >>>HINDU      FGM  >>> islam -----out dated
> and in some places illegal.    Sati is illegal and-----seems to be not done in India---
> FGM is done in Pakistan-----and thruout the Islamic world ----in some places
> it is illegal.      Anthropology is a real social science-----liars do it poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit.  With the customary lack of any link at all.
> 
> Part the first:  castes
> 
> >> Some scholars of caste have considered _jāti_ to have its basis in religion, assuming that in India the sacred elements of life envelope the secular aspects; for example, the anthropologist Louis Dumont described the ritual rankings that exist within the _jāti_ system as being based on the concepts of religious purity and pollution.[25] This view has been disputed by other scholars, who believe it to be a secular social phenomenon driven by the necessities of economics, politics, and sometimes also geography.[24][25][26][27]
> ....
> _Jātis_ have existed in India among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and tribal people, and there is no clear linear order.[31]
> << --- Caste system in India: Origins (Wiki)
> 
> --- and from the intro paragraph on that page:
> >> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the collapse of Mughal era and the British colonial regime in India.[2][11] The collapse of Mughal era saw the rise of powerful men who associated themselves with kings, priests and ascetics, affirming the regal and martial form of the caste ideal, and it also reshaped many apparently casteless social groups into differentiated caste communities.[12] The British Raj furthered this development, making rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.[2][11][4][13][_page needed_][5][14] Between 1860 and 1920, the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to the upper castes. <<​-- which explains that the caste system as it exists today is partly a European-incited structure.  But again, derived from politics, not religion.
> 
> Not to mention this, from the same intro:
> 
> >> The caste system has been challenged over time by Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and many reformist movements in Hinduism.[18] However, aspects of the caste system continue to exist in India *in all these religions.*[18][19][20] <<​
> 
> Part the Second: FGM
> 
> >> The origins of the practice are unknown.[161] Its east-west, north-south distribution in Africa meets in Sudan, leading Gerry Mackie to speculate that infibulation originated with the Meroite civilization and imperial polygyny, before the rise of Islam, to increase confidence in paternity.[162]
> 
> ...
> The proposed circumcision of an Egyptian girl, Tathemis, is mentioned on a Greek papyrus from *163 BCE* in the British Museum:
> 
> Sometime after this, Nephoris [Tathemis's mother] defrauded me, being anxious that it was time for Tathemis to be circumcised, as is the custom among the Egyptians. She asked that I give her 1,300 drachmae ... to clothe her ... and to provide her with a marriage dowry ... if she didn't do each of these or if she did not circumcise Tathemis in the month of Mecheir, year 18 [163 BCE], she would repay me 2,400 drachmae on the spot.[164]
> 
> ...
> The Greek geographer Strabo (c. *64 BCE – c. 23 CE*) wrote about FGM after visiting Egypt around *25 BCE.*[n 19][n 20] The philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. *20 BCE – 50 CE)* also made reference to it: "the Egyptians by the custom of their country circumcise the marriageable youth and maid in the fourteenth (year) of their age, when the male begins to get seed, and the female to have a menstrual flow."[169] It is mentioned briefly in a work attributed to the Greek physician Galen (*129 – c. 200 CE*): "When [the clitoris] sticks out to a great extent in their young women, Egyptians consider it appropriate to cut it out."[170]
> 
> Another Greek physician, Aëtius of Amida (mid-5th to mid-6th century CE), offered more detail in book 16 of his _Sixteen Books on Medicine_, citing the physician Philomenes. The procedure was performed in case the clitoris, or _nymphê_, grew too large or triggered sexual desire when rubbing against clothing. "On this account, it seemed proper to the Egyptians to remove it before it became greatly enlarged," Aëtius wrote, "especially at that time when the girls were about to be married": <<​Once again --- linear time rears its head.  ALL of the above citations were recorded before Mohammad or Islam existed.  Moreover this cultural artifact is concentrated in Africa, and not in the greater Muslim world, including Christian nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (background, from the source above) >> Why would a mother be willing to have such a cruel, painful and highly risky procedure, which has no benefits for her at all performed on her daughter? The answer is often *economic*. In societies that practice FGM, daughters are an essential part of their parents “retirement plan” (which of course does not exist in most of the countries where FGM is being practices). Arranged marriages are a vital part of a family’s income, especially as the parents get older and may no longer be able to work. In societies where FGM is the norm, not mutilating one’s daughters would make it very difficult, if not impossible to marry them. This is a huge financial and social risk for a mother to take.<<  --- FGM and Poverty​
> In fact it was used here and in "modern"  Europe as late as the 19th century to control pseudo-conditions like "nymphomania"  --- which is essentially also its ancient purpose in Africa.
> 
> Once AGAIN, he said to the wilfully blind, what this all has in common is not religion or language or race -- it's _*patriarchy.  *_It's the_* social order*_ and the way it's perceived within that community's values.
Click to expand...



   WATTA genius-----Pogo is pulling stuff out of his  ANTHROPOLOGY 101 
crème puff textbook ---------he imagines that no one else in the world did
those idiot electives.      THE ORIGIN of  FGM is interesting--------it is FUN---
when I was a student I considered courses like anthropology and the books
required to be stuff I did in  BREAK TIME-------when calculus or organic
chemistry became tedious------I took a break-----and read my anthro. or soc.
books    TO REST MY  MIND.     Pogo takes that past time course as being  
ROCKET SCIENCE.      Islam incorporated   FGM  into the CREED OF ISLAM ----
fairly recently since islam came to be fairly recently-----POGO MADE NO POINT. 
Pogo reminds me of a now dead  ARAB NATIONALIST activist of Iraqi origin.   
Dr.   M. T. Mehdi.     He came to the USA to agitate for his friend Saddam way back
in the mid sixties and put his ass on TV and radio as much as he could------He ---
hated jews as much as did his friend  SADDAM  and somehow got all bent out
of shape that   Israelis like  PITA AND FELAFEL  (believe it or not---really)   
He gave an HYSTERICAL RANT  ----ON RADIO        screaming  ----------
 "PITAAAA  IS ARRABBB" -----actually it is just a flatbread made with yeasted dough------that has existed thruout the middle east and into the far east for
thousands of years.     The word itself is ----just a semitic word that shows up in
the Talmud--------SOPHISTRY  POGO-------pita is flat bread----of a primitive kind
and  FGM   is a practice that likely began in EGYPT   and is NOW-----overwhelmingly    ISLAMIC     and considered by muslims to be part and parcel
of  ISLAMIC practice-------the big MO-----mentioned it somewhere in the koran/hadith thing       Regarding clitorectomy as a "treatment"  for
masturbation?     so?    weird but true.      It was also used for treatment of  CONGENITALLY ENLARGED   clitoris        The clitoris can be so enlarged at birth that it looks like a phallus---------is that not interesting?       so?      This fact has nothing to do with the routine practice of    FGM in muslim populations.    Pita is now
part of   Israeli cuisine-------which makes it as jewish as the bagel-----
which is an adaptation of some thing made in Eastern Europe------however now
shows up on the tables of--------even Yemenite jews.     Of course it is also
greek and ---------and New York City----but FGM IS NOT.     You also remind me
of a Shiite muslim from India I knew long ago who tried to convince me that INDIAN cuisine------from chapatti and dal all the way to tandoori chicken and every spice
used in India was invented by the glorious  MOGHULS


----------



## irosie91

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am the realistic one.  You want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there are real "social" problems with ONE particular religion pretty much everywhere it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Emily.  I've already pointed this out, linked to scholars, linked to historical evidence, and linked to case histories all indicating the same thing.  But self-delusion is apparently powerful stuff.
> 
> I think it's important to get this right so that the disease, not the symptom, gets addressed.  Otherwise, left to the emotion-based mythology, all we do is play wack-a-mole, and that's a game that has no end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For starters, posts 361 and 362.
Click to expand...


do not hurt your head banging it on the POGO WALL


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
Click to expand...


Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.


----------



## irosie91

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
Click to expand...



fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate


----------



## ChrisL

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
Click to expand...


Obviously being "politically correct" is more important than truth for a lot of people.  It makes me want to hurl, honestly.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah, and "Jews control the media" and "Irish are drunks" and "black people are lazy".  Heard it all before.  Do you learn _nothing _from history??

Try a simple exercise here.  Let's say you're a Muslim, and a devout one.

_(it's worth noting here, "Muslim" doesn't automatically mean "devout" any more than "Christian" or "Jewish" etc do....)._

--- but let's say you _are_ devout, and poor, and lean heavily on your local tribal religious leader for guidance.  Let's say that religious leader also believes, as you seem to here, that HBV, for example, is an "Islamic" thing and is sanctioned and even prescribed in Islam and leads you to believe that....

_(I understand we've already demonstrated the above is bullshit but for the example let's say both you and he *believe *that...)_

-- Now onto the scene come people like us in the real world, wishing to get the barbaric practice stopped....

Are we -- the anti-HBV movement --  going to have more success convincing you by:

(a) telling you your religion is all fucked up and you have to dump everything in your lifestyle and start over?  or
(b) explaining -- and demonstrating as I have here -- that HBV is in fact NOT a part of your religion and never was?​
Which one's more likely to liberate you?

-- You see the hole you dig yourself into, running on myths?


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah, and "Jews control the media" and "Irish are drunks" and "black people are lazy".  Heard it all before.  Do you learn _nothing _from history??
> 
> Try a simple exercise here.  Let's say you're a Muslim, and a devout one.
> 
> _(it's worth noting here, "Muslim" doesn't automatically mean "devout" any more than "Christian" or "Jewish" etc do....)._
> 
> --- but let's say you _are_ devout, and poor, and lean heavily on your local tribal religious leader for guidance.  Let's say that religious leader also believes, as you seem to here, that HBV, for example, is an "Islamic" thing and is sanctioned and even prescribed in Islam and leads you to believe that....
> 
> _(I understand we've already demonstrated the above is bullshit but for the example let's say both you and he *believe *that...)_
> 
> -- Now onto the scene come people like us in the real world, wishing to get the barbaric practice stopped....
> 
> Are we -- the anti-HBV movement --  going to have more success convincing you by:
> 
> (a) telling you your religion is all fucked up and you have to dump everything in your lifestyle and start over?  or
> (b) explaining -- and demonstrating as I have here -- that HBV is in fact NOT a part of your religion and never was?​
> Which one's more likely to liberate you?
> 
> -- You see the hole you dig yourself into, running on myths?
Click to expand...


No, but I do see you keep digging yourself in deeper.  It's not a myth that Islam is the religion responsible for most violence on our planet today.  That is just a fact that you need to learn how to deal with.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
"When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
"When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....

etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah, and "Jews control the media" and "Irish are drunks" and "black people are lazy".  Heard it all before.  Do you learn _nothing _from history??
> 
> Try a simple exercise here.  Let's say you're a Muslim, and a devout one.
> 
> _(it's worth noting here, "Muslim" doesn't automatically mean "devout" any more than "Christian" or "Jewish" etc do....)._
> 
> --- but let's say you _are_ devout, and poor, and lean heavily on your local tribal religious leader for guidance.  Let's say that religious leader also believes, as you seem to here, that HBV, for example, is an "Islamic" thing and is sanctioned and even prescribed in Islam and leads you to believe that....
> 
> _(I understand we've already demonstrated the above is bullshit but for the example let's say both you and he *believe *that...)_
> 
> -- Now onto the scene come people like us in the real world, wishing to get the barbaric practice stopped....
> 
> Are we -- the anti-HBV movement --  going to have more success convincing you by:
> 
> (a) telling you your religion is all fucked up and you have to dump everything in your lifestyle and start over?  or
> (b) explaining -- and demonstrating as I have here -- that HBV is in fact NOT a part of your religion and never was?​
> Which one's more likely to liberate you?
> 
> -- You see the hole you dig yourself into, running on myths?
Click to expand...


lets say that I have known lots of muslims.    (true)   Lets say that some of them were "devout"  more or less and some  "not"   more or less.     Lets say that I have
discussed many issues with muslims------true.     Lets say that I know how muslims
feel about comments about their religion offered to them by non muslims.  <<true.
I learned LONG ago that muslims have no interest in what a non muslim has to say about islam or the customs of people from muslim countries.......    so I say nothing about it---------which is why I know so much--------I do not openly judge


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
Click to expand...


we do not do it  "for the same purpose"      IN THE PAST------like 100 years ago
some very few people did it for  "excessive masturbation"   ------congenital enlarged
clitoris is an ABNORMALITY   ------the enlarged clitoris makes the infant look like a
BOY-----Not reducing its size would be a handicap for the child------it is a very rare anomally      I have seen babies born without a brain  (no brain at all)    but never
did I see in real life a congenitally enlarged clitoris---------I have seen pictures in
textbooks


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do deny that it applies to "ONE particular religion", yes.  That makes me the one with his head OUT OF the sand.
> That's because I don't just swallow every meme the media tries to sell me without putting it through a smell test.
> 
> An approach you might be well advised to try.
> 
> And it does not go unnoticed that your last two words are "it seems".  "It seems" just ain't good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you deny that most of the honor killing violence you hear about is not usually related to ONE particular religion, then I am going to call you "ostrich boy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear ChrisL
> With the honor killings, how many of these come out of Pakistani families?
> I asked a Muslim friend of mine, and he said it is tied to Pakistani culture.
> 
> I would compare "honor killings" to equally tragic reports from India
> of women burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands
> 
> Yes, it's illegal to do this.
> But "some people" are still carrying out old traditions, because of their social conditioning.
> 
> For these illegal acts coming out of India, is it fair to blame this on "Hinduism"?
> It may be part of the old CULTURE,
> but of course it isn't part of the law or religious beliefs that are AGAINST such acts.
> 
> If you are looking for an easy answer to blame it on,
> I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
> 
> The conditioning goes deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burning a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband is  DEFINITELY a rite linked to
> Hinduism.    I have never met a HINDU who denied that fact.    I have known lots of educated hindus-----it has been made illegal in India and was probably restricted to
> WEALTHY UPPER CLASS hindus even in ancient times.    Lots of hindu girls find it
> "romantic"    There is a belief that burning together will give the couple ---eternal togetherness in the reincarnation game.     Muslims who deny that FGM  is
> linked to islam are lying.     There have been a few cases of hindu wives PREVENTED from jumping on the funeral pyre who committed suicide in order
> to accomplish the custom.      "BLAME"???      why say "blame"    an honest
> evaluation is the answer. ---------sati   >>>HINDU      FGM  >>> islam -----out dated
> and in some places illegal.    Sati is illegal and-----seems to be not done in India---
> FGM is done in Pakistan-----and thruout the Islamic world ----in some places
> it is illegal.      Anthropology is a real social science-----liars do it poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit.  With the customary lack of any link at all.
> 
> Part the first:  castes
> 
> >> Some scholars of caste have considered _jāti_ to have its basis in religion, assuming that in India the sacred elements of life envelope the secular aspects; for example, the anthropologist Louis Dumont described the ritual rankings that exist within the _jāti_ system as being based on the concepts of religious purity and pollution.[25] This view has been disputed by other scholars, who believe it to be a secular social phenomenon driven by the necessities of economics, politics, and sometimes also geography.[24][25][26][27]
> ....
> _Jātis_ have existed in India among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and tribal people, and there is no clear linear order.[31]
> << --- Caste system in India: Origins (Wiki)
> 
> --- and from the intro paragraph on that page:
> >> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the collapse of Mughal era and the British colonial regime in India.[2][11] The collapse of Mughal era saw the rise of powerful men who associated themselves with kings, priests and ascetics, affirming the regal and martial form of the caste ideal, and it also reshaped many apparently casteless social groups into differentiated caste communities.[12] The British Raj furthered this development, making rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.[2][11][4][13][_page needed_][5][14] Between 1860 and 1920, the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to the upper castes. <<​-- which explains that the caste system as it exists today is partly a European-incited structure.  But again, derived from politics, not religion.
> 
> Not to mention this, from the same intro:
> 
> >> The caste system has been challenged over time by Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and many reformist movements in Hinduism.[18] However, aspects of the caste system continue to exist in India *in all these religions.*[18][19][20] <<​
> 
> Part the Second: FGM
> 
> >> The origins of the practice are unknown.[161] Its east-west, north-south distribution in Africa meets in Sudan, leading Gerry Mackie to speculate that infibulation originated with the Meroite civilization and imperial polygyny, before the rise of Islam, to increase confidence in paternity.[162]
> 
> ...
> The proposed circumcision of an Egyptian girl, Tathemis, is mentioned on a Greek papyrus from *163 BCE* in the British Museum:
> 
> Sometime after this, Nephoris [Tathemis's mother] defrauded me, being anxious that it was time for Tathemis to be circumcised, as is the custom among the Egyptians. She asked that I give her 1,300 drachmae ... to clothe her ... and to provide her with a marriage dowry ... if she didn't do each of these or if she did not circumcise Tathemis in the month of Mecheir, year 18 [163 BCE], she would repay me 2,400 drachmae on the spot.[164]
> 
> ...
> The Greek geographer Strabo (c. *64 BCE – c. 23 CE*) wrote about FGM after visiting Egypt around *25 BCE.*[n 19][n 20] The philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. *20 BCE – 50 CE)* also made reference to it: "the Egyptians by the custom of their country circumcise the marriageable youth and maid in the fourteenth (year) of their age, when the male begins to get seed, and the female to have a menstrual flow."[169] It is mentioned briefly in a work attributed to the Greek physician Galen (*129 – c. 200 CE*): "When [the clitoris] sticks out to a great extent in their young women, Egyptians consider it appropriate to cut it out."[170]
> 
> Another Greek physician, Aëtius of Amida (mid-5th to mid-6th century CE), offered more detail in book 16 of his _Sixteen Books on Medicine_, citing the physician Philomenes. The procedure was performed in case the clitoris, or _nymphê_, grew too large or triggered sexual desire when rubbing against clothing. "On this account, it seemed proper to the Egyptians to remove it before it became greatly enlarged," Aëtius wrote, "especially at that time when the girls were about to be married": <<​Once again --- linear time rears its head.  ALL of the above citations were recorded before Mohammad or Islam existed.  Moreover this cultural artifact is concentrated in Africa, and not in the greater Muslim world, including Christian nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (background, from the source above) >> Why would a mother be willing to have such a cruel, painful and highly risky procedure, which has no benefits for her at all performed on her daughter? The answer is often *economic*. In societies that practice FGM, daughters are an essential part of their parents “retirement plan” (which of course does not exist in most of the countries where FGM is being practices). Arranged marriages are a vital part of a family’s income, especially as the parents get older and may no longer be able to work. In societies where FGM is the norm, not mutilating one’s daughters would make it very difficult, if not impossible to marry them. This is a huge financial and social risk for a mother to take.<<  --- FGM and Poverty​
> In fact it was used here and in "modern"  Europe as late as the 19th century to control pseudo-conditions like "nymphomania"  --- which is essentially also its ancient purpose in Africa.
> 
> Once AGAIN, he said to the wilfully blind, what this all has in common is not religion or language or race -- it's _*patriarchy.  *_It's the_* social order*_ and the way it's perceived within that community's values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WATTA genius-----Pogo is pulling stuff out of his  ANTHROPOLOGY 101
> crème puff textbook ---------he imagines that no one else in the world did
> those idiot electives.      THE ORIGIN of  FGM is interesting--------it is FUN---
> when I was a student I considered courses like anthropology and the books
> required to be stuff I did in  BREAK TIME-------when calculus or organic
> chemistry became tedious------I took a break-----and read my anthro. or soc.
> books    TO REST MY  MIND.     Pogo takes that past time course as being
> ROCKET SCIENCE.      Islam incorporated   FGM  into the CREED OF ISLAM ----
> fairly recently since islam came to be fairly recently-----POGO MADE NO POINT.
> Pogo reminds me of a now dead  ARAB NATIONALIST activist of Iraqi origin.
> Dr.   M. T. Mehdi.     He came to the USA to agitate for his friend Saddam way back
> in the mid sixties and put his ass on TV and radio as much as he could------He ---
> hated jews as much as did his friend  SADDAM  and somehow got all bent out
> of shape that   Israelis like  PITA AND FELAFEL  (believe it or not---really)
> He gave an HYSTERICAL RANT  ----ON RADIO        screaming  ----------
> "PITAAAA  IS ARRABBB" -----actually it is just a flatbread made with yeasted dough------that has existed thruout the middle east and into the far east for
> thousands of years.     The word itself is ----just a semitic word that shows up in
> the Talmud--------SOPHISTRY  POGO-------pita is flat bread----of a primitive kind
> and  FGM   is a practice that likely began in EGYPT   and is NOW-----overwhelmingly    ISLAMIC     and considered by muslims to be part and parcel
> of  ISLAMIC practice-------the big MO-----mentioned it somewhere in the koran/hadith thing       Regarding clitorectomy as a "treatment"  for
> masturbation?     so?    weird but true.      It was also used for treatment of  CONGENITALLY ENLARGED   clitoris        The clitoris can be so enlarged at birth that it looks like a phallus---------is that not interesting?       so?      This fact has nothing to do with the routine practice of    FGM in muslim populations.    Pita is now
> part of   Israeli cuisine-------which makes it as jewish as the bagel-----
> which is an adaptation of some thing made in Eastern Europe------however now
> shows up on the tables of--------even Yemenite jews.     Of course it is also
> greek and ---------and New York City----but FGM IS NOT.     You also remind me
> of a Shiite muslim from India I knew long ago who tried to convince me that INDIAN cuisine------from chapatti and dal all the way to tandoori chicken and every spice
> used in India was invented by the glorious  MOGHULS
Click to expand...


I have never brought up pita, speaking of sophistry, Sophie.  But I do have some, and when I eat it I have a grand total of exactly zero-point-zero-zero thoughts about any kind of religion, nor has that association ever occurred to me.

Once AGAIN -- if my experience with pita was limited to Muslims, and if I were given to Composition Fallacies, then I might be inclined to conclude "pita is Muslim".  Then again if my pita experience was entirely Jewish and given to easy fallacies, I might think "this is a Jewish bread".

Fortunately I don't think like that.

Dammit, now you made me hungry.  I'm going for pita.  It just seems the Christian thing to do....


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
Click to expand...


Why are you so dishonest?  Like Rosie said, when WE perform it here, it is because of a legitimate problem.  Not because "Muhammed" thinks it's grand to "control" women by taking away their sexual pleasure zone.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so dishonest?  Like Rosie said, when WE perform it here, it is because of a legitimate problem.  Not because "Muhammed" thinks it's grand to "control" women by taking away their sexual pleasure zone.
Click to expand...


Yup, there's another one--- "when we do it it's "legitimate"; when they do it it's not.

Yammer yammer yammer....

Link to where Mohammad says that is where?
And how would Mohammad be talking _about _a practice ----- if it didn't already exist?  He would have to be inventing it.  Is that what you're saying?  Mohammad invented FGM?

And just where the hell do you get off calling ME "dishonest"?   Am I sitting here trying to sell FGM as "Islamist" even though I see Christians in Africa doing it?  Am I sitting here trying to sell HBV as "Islamist" even though I see Hindus and Sikhs in India doing it?  Am I the one denying linear time hanging religious labels on practices that not only sprang up in places the religion never touched, but are KNOWN AND RECORDED before said religion _ever existed_??

Yeah, tell us all about "dishonesty".


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so dishonest?  Like Rosie said, when WE perform it here, it is because of a legitimate problem.  Not because "Muhammed" thinks it's grand to "control" women by taking away their sexual pleasure zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, there's another one--- "when we do it it's "legitimate"; when they do it it's not.
> 
> Yammer yammer yammer....
> 
> Link to where Mohammad says that is where?
> And how would Mohammad be talking _about _a practice ----- if it didn't already exist?  He would have to be inventing it.  Is that what you're saying?  Mohammad invented FGM?
Click to expand...


I already gave you links to that information.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily-----you are playing the "ALL" game that is a characteristic of propagandaists-----are you a propagandaists? I have never met a single person in my life who blamed ALL CHRISTIANS for the slavery that was practiced in the pre civil war USA------you are ALL GAME is a libel. Libels are for lynch gangs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we do not do it  "for the same purpose"      IN THE PAST------like 100 years ago
> some very few people did it for  "excessive masturbation"   ------congenital enlarged
> clitoris is an ABNORMALITY   ------the enlarged clitoris makes the infant look like a
> BOY-----Not reducing its size would be a handicap for the child------it is a very rare anomally      I have seen babies born without a brain  (no brain at all)    but never
> did I see in real life a congenitally enlarged clitoris---------I have seen pictures in
> textbooks
Click to expand...


"100 years"  huh?

>> "Indicative of the regard in which female circumcision is held is the decision made by the National Blue Shield Association on May 18, *1977*, which stated that henceforth they would no longer pay for a number of procedures considered "obsolete or ineffective," such as ... female circumcision."

Wallerstein, Edward, "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy", 1980, p. 185.

*Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It*
"The same category of diseases having their origin in nerve-waste, caused by a pathological foreskin in the male, may be duplicated in the female, from practically the same cause, and in addition, other diseases peculiar to females."

Benjamin E. Dawson, MD, Kansas City, MO
American Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, June 1915, pp.520-523

He claimed to have cured colic in a 3 week old baby, masturbation in a 7 year old, nocturnal enuresis in a 16 year old, nymphomania in a 46 year old, among other "cures".


*Circumcision of the Female*
"If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? The procedure is easy. The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."

C.F. McDonald, MD, Milwaukee, WI
GP, vol.XVIII, no. 3, pp. 98-99
September *1958*


*Female Circumcisions, Indications and a New Technique*
"Redundance or phimosis of the female prepuce can prevent proper enjoyment of sexual relations; yet some modern physicians overlook indications for circumcision. Properly carried out, circumcision shouFGM vs MGMld bring improvement to 85-90% of cases - with resulting cure of psychosomatic illness and prevention of divorces."

W.G. Rathmann, MD, Los Angeles, CA
GP, vol.XX, no.3, pp.115-120
September *1959*

Women’s magazines in the mid 1970s promoted "female circumcision" to enhance women’s sexual pleasure. In October *1973*, _Playgirl_ published “Circumcision for Women: The Kindest Cut of All” followed in May *1975* by “$100 Surgery for a Million Dollar Sex Life”. <<   (all here).

​




see anything yet?​


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we do not do it  "for the same purpose"      IN THE PAST------like 100 years ago
> some very few people did it for  "excessive masturbation"   ------congenital enlarged
> clitoris is an ABNORMALITY   ------the enlarged clitoris makes the infant look like a
> BOY-----Not reducing its size would be a handicap for the child------it is a very rare anomally      I have seen babies born without a brain  (no brain at all)    but never
> did I see in real life a congenitally enlarged clitoris---------I have seen pictures in
> textbooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "100 years"  huh?
> 
> >> "Indicative of the regard in which female circumcision is held is the decision made by the National Blue Shield Association on May 18, *1977*, which stated that henceforth they would no longer pay for a number of procedures considered "obsolete or ineffective," such as ... female circumcision."
> 
> Wallerstein, Edward, "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy", 1980, p. 185.
> 
> *Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It*
> "The same category of diseases having their origin in nerve-waste, caused by a pathological foreskin in the male, may be duplicated in the female, from practically the same cause, and in addition, other diseases peculiar to females."
> 
> Benjamin E. Dawson, MD, Kansas City, MO
> American Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, June 1915, pp.520-523
> 
> He claimed to have cured colic in a 3 week old baby, masturbation in a 7 year old, nocturnal enuresis in a 16 year old, nymphomania in a 46 year old, among other "cures".
> 
> 
> *Circumcision of the Female*
> "If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? The procedure is easy. The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."
> 
> C.F. McDonald, MD, Milwaukee, WI
> GP, vol.XVIII, no. 3, pp. 98-99
> September *1958*
> 
> 
> *Female Circumcisions, Indications and a New Technique*
> "Redundance or phimosis of the female prepuce can prevent proper enjoyment of sexual relations; yet some modern physicians overlook indications for circumcision. Properly carried out, circumcision shouFGM vs MGMld bring improvement to 85-90% of cases - with resulting cure of psychosomatic illness and prevention of divorces."
> 
> W.G. Rathmann, MD, Los Angeles, CA
> GP, vol.XX, no.3, pp.115-120
> September *1959*
> 
> Women’s magazines in the mid 1970s promoted "female circumcision" to enhance women’s sexual pleasure. In October *1973*, _Playgirl_ published “Circumcision for Women: The Kindest Cut of All” followed in May *1975* by “$100 Surgery for a Million Dollar Sex Life”. <<   (all here).
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see anything yet?​
Click to expand...


That's you, Professor Ostrich, with your head in the sand again!


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, they are "radical" because they haven't changed or progressed in past thousands of years.



You go with that.  You pretend that decades of war we've inflicted on the region has had nothing to do with radicalizing them.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Damn Joey you really are losing it.
> 
> The State is the people...WTF!!!...you really believe our government is of the people, by the people, for the people???....oh please. What complete and utterly BS.



Yeah, actually, I believe that.  Why don't you? I mean besides the fact you are an misanthropic mutant who hasn't left his basement since the Clinton years.


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> WATTA genius-----Pogo is pulling stuff out of his ANTHROPOLOGY 101
> crème puff textbook ---------he imagines that no one else in the world did
> those idiot electives. THE ORIGIN of FGM is interesting--------it is FUN---
> when I was a student I considered courses like anthropology and the books
> required to be stuff I did in BREAK TIME



Is this before or after you read the extensive Nazi Library somewhere in the Midwest?


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WATTA genius-----Pogo is pulling stuff out of his ANTHROPOLOGY 101
> crème puff textbook ---------he imagines that no one else in the world did
> those idiot electives. THE ORIGIN of FGM is interesting--------it is FUN---
> when I was a student I considered courses like anthropology and the books
> required to be stuff I did in BREAK TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this before or after you read the extensive Nazi Library somewhere in the Midwest?
Click to expand...


I have never been in the Midwest------in the USA----the Nazi enclaves during your HEYDAY-----to wit---the 1920s----40s  existed in the north eastern part of the USA


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume you mean "labels" on the end there...
> 
> What you're trying to describe here is a blanket generalization fallacy -- yet that's exactly what your position here is based on, ascribing this, that and the other thing to "Islam" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary ---- stoning in the OT.... FGM in the BCE era and performed by American and European doctors....  HBV in India and around the world -- that disprove your blanket statements.  All you've given us in lieu of links is a grand Composition Fallacy.  And that's intentional ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line is that this one religion is responsible for most of the violence that is happening in the world today.  There are multiple terror attacks, honor killings, etc. every day in the name of this one religion.  You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.  You want to keep denying the truth, that is your prerogative, but I'm not going to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> fpr the record----that which has very rarely been done in the practice of European and American medicine is not   FGM----it is clitorectomy----more accurately reduction of the clitoris   in cases of incessant masturbation which some Christian
> sects saw as a sin and reduction of abnormally enlarged clitoris ---a RARE congenital anomaly         POGO is desperate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  "When we do it it's 'clitorectomy' -- when they do it for the same purpose it's barbarism"...
> "When we do it it's 'freedom fighting' -- when they do it it's "terrorism"....
> "When we do it we're  or 'spreading the good news of the gospel'  -- when they do it they're 'taking over the world' ....
> 
> etc etc etc.... Having it both ways: Priceless. Euphemisms-R-us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we do not do it  "for the same purpose"      IN THE PAST------like 100 years ago
> some very few people did it for  "excessive masturbation"   ------congenital enlarged
> clitoris is an ABNORMALITY   ------the enlarged clitoris makes the infant look like a
> BOY-----Not reducing its size would be a handicap for the child------it is a very rare anomally      I have seen babies born without a brain  (no brain at all)    but never
> did I see in real life a congenitally enlarged clitoris---------I have seen pictures in
> textbooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "100 years"  huh?
> 
> >> "Indicative of the regard in which female circumcision is held is the decision made by the National Blue Shield Association on May 18, *1977*, which stated that henceforth they would no longer pay for a number of procedures considered "obsolete or ineffective," such as ... female circumcision."
> 
> Wallerstein, Edward, "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy", 1980, p. 185.
> 
> *Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It*
> "The same category of diseases having their origin in nerve-waste, caused by a pathological foreskin in the male, may be duplicated in the female, from practically the same cause, and in addition, other diseases peculiar to females."
> 
> Benjamin E. Dawson, MD, Kansas City, MO
> American Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, June 1915, pp.520-523
> 
> He claimed to have cured colic in a 3 week old baby, masturbation in a 7 year old, nocturnal enuresis in a 16 year old, nymphomania in a 46 year old, among other "cures".
> 
> 
> *Circumcision of the Female*
> "If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? The procedure is easy. The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female."
> 
> C.F. McDonald, MD, Milwaukee, WI
> GP, vol.XVIII, no. 3, pp. 98-99
> September *1958*
> 
> 
> *Female Circumcisions, Indications and a New Technique*
> "Redundance or phimosis of the female prepuce can prevent proper enjoyment of sexual relations; yet some modern physicians overlook indications for circumcision. Properly carried out, circumcision shouFGM vs MGMld bring improvement to 85-90% of cases - with resulting cure of psychosomatic illness and prevention of divorces."
> 
> W.G. Rathmann, MD, Los Angeles, CA
> GP, vol.XX, no.3, pp.115-120
> September *1959*
> 
> Women’s magazines in the mid 1970s promoted "female circumcision" to enhance women’s sexual pleasure. In October *1973*, _Playgirl_ published “Circumcision for Women: The Kindest Cut of All” followed in May *1975* by “$100 Surgery for a Million Dollar Sex Life”. <<   (all here).
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see anything yet?​
Click to expand...

 
so ?   some single idiot and probably neurotic WASP  doc   wrote a paper.    There is no question----such people DID attribute all kinds of maladies to that which they
called  "self-abuse" -----the very natural and normal and healthy act known as
masturbation


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> I have never been in the Midwest------in the USA----the Nazi enclaves during your HEYDAY-----to wit---the 1920s----40s existed in the north eastern part of the USA



Suuuuuure they did.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn Joey you really are losing it.
> 
> The State is the people...WTF!!!...you really believe our government is of the people, by the people, for the people???....oh please. What complete and utterly BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually, I believe that.  Why don't you? I mean besides the fact you are an misanthropic mutant who hasn't left his basement since the Clinton years.
Click to expand...

Only proves how naive you are.  You desperately want to believe government is good, even though all of civilized history proves it is not.  

Your hypocrisy is clear...thinking government is only good, when a D is in charge.  Government is bad when an R is in charge....even though it is clear that there is little difference between the parties.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Only proves how naive you are. You desperately want to believe government is good, even though all of civilized history proves it is not.
> 
> Your hypocrisy is clear...thinking government is only good, when a D is in charge. Government is bad when an R is in charge....even though it is clear that there is little difference between the parties.



I don't think it's "bad" when republicans are in charge, just inept.  

Most of history proves that you need government to get roads, sanitation, law, order, commerce and so on.  You know, the things you have when you have "Civilization".  

The Libertarian is a spoiled child who expects those things without contributing to them.


----------



## RWS

What is more important?

The OP? 

or the political discussion that followed? 

This is an interesting question.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are "radical" because they haven't changed or progressed in past thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that.  You pretend that decades of war we've inflicted on the region has had nothing to do with radicalizing them.
Click to expand...


Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.


----------



## irosie91

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are "radical" because they haven't changed or progressed in past thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that.  You pretend that decades of war we've inflicted on the region has had nothing to do with radicalizing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.
Click to expand...


the muslims who enacted the recent  "event"  in Paris were EMULATING AL NABI-----
except-----as far as I know-----they did not indulge in rape


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are "radical" because they haven't changed or progressed in past thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go with that.  You pretend that decades of war we've inflicted on the region has had nothing to do with radicalizing them.
Click to expand...

Joey did those innocent Parisians deserve to be massacred by radical Islamists, because their government bombed Syria?


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.



Why you are right.  Listen to this crazy stuff from the Quran! 

"Blessed is he who smashes thy little ones heads against the stones!" 

Oh, wait. Sorry, that was the BIBLE. My bad.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Joey did those innocent Parisians deserve to be massacred by radical Islamists, because their government bombed Syria?



NO, they didn't.  and those innocent Syrians and Iraqis didn't deserve to be killed because Exxon wanted their oil. 

Those 2000 innocent Palestinians didn't deserve to be killed because three Jewish teenagers were killed by gang members. 

again, stoning is barbaric and carpet bombing is 'civilized'.  

Maybe we need to just fight wars and not try to whine about getting hit back.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey did those innocent Parisians deserve to be massacred by radical Islamists, because their government bombed Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they didn't.  and those innocent Syrians and Iraqis didn't deserve to be killed because Exxon wanted their oil.
> 
> Those 2000 innocent Palestinians didn't deserve to be killed because three Jewish teenagers were killed by gang members.
> 
> again, stoning is barbaric and carpet bombing is 'civilized'.
> 
> Maybe we need to just fight wars and not try to whine about getting hit back.
Click to expand...


What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.


----------



## irosie91

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey did those innocent Parisians deserve to be massacred by radical Islamists, because their government bombed Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they didn't.  and those innocent Syrians and Iraqis didn't deserve to be killed because Exxon wanted their oil.
> 
> Those 2000 innocent Palestinians didn't deserve to be killed because three Jewish teenagers were killed by gang members.
> 
> again, stoning is barbaric and carpet bombing is 'civilized'.
> 
> Maybe we need to just fight wars and not try to whine about getting hit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that such is the plan of Donald Trump-----true to his nature---he is
looking at the economic status----specifically of the jihado pigs-----and considering
how to cripple them -------economically


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you are right.  Listen to this crazy stuff from the Quran!
> 
> "Blessed is he who smashes thy little ones heads against the stones!"
> 
> Oh, wait. Sorry, that was the BIBLE. My bad.
Click to expand...

Psalm 137  
*1*By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept

when we remembered Zion.

*2*There on the poplars

we hung our harps,

*3*for there our captors asked us for songs,

our tormentors demanded songs of joy;

they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

*4*How can we sing the songs of the Lord

while in a foreign land?

*5*If I forget you, Jerusalem,

may my right hand forget its skill.

*6*May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth

if I do not remember you,

if I do not consider Jerusalem

my highest joy.

*7*Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did

on the day Jerusalem fell.

“Tear it down,” they cried,

“tear it down to its foundations!”

*8*Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

*9**Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

Yes, the Edomites were happy when they killed babies, *much as extremists are happy when they kill anyone, from any age, or nationality.

Let me do as you do, and take exerts from the Bible out of context, and see if I can get you to follow it JoeB.

Judas went away and hanged himself. Go and do likewise.

Matthew 27:5 So *Judas* threw the money into the temple and left. Then he *went away and hanged himself.*


Luke 10:37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "*Go and do likewise*."

I don't expect you to do this, yet you believe Christians are stupid enough too.. ..


----------



## irosie91

UllysesS.Archer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you are right.  Listen to this crazy stuff from the Quran!
> 
> "Blessed is he who smashes thy little ones heads against the stones!"
> 
> Oh, wait. Sorry, that was the BIBLE. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Psalm 137
> *1*By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
> 
> when we remembered Zion.
> 
> *2*There on the poplars
> 
> we hung our harps,
> 
> *3*for there our captors asked us for songs,
> 
> our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
> 
> they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
> 
> *4*How can we sing the songs of the Lord
> 
> while in a foreign land?
> 
> *5*If I forget you, Jerusalem,
> 
> may my right hand forget its skill.
> 
> *6*May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
> 
> if I do not remember you,
> 
> if I do not consider Jerusalem
> 
> my highest joy.
> 
> *7*Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
> 
> on the day Jerusalem fell.
> 
> “Tear it down,” they cried,
> 
> “tear it down to its foundations!”
> 
> *8*Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> 
> happy is the one who repays you
> 
> according to what you have done to us.
> 
> *9**Happy is the one who seizes your infants
> 
> and dashes them against the rocks.
> 
> Yes, the Edomites were happy when they killed babies, *much as extremists are happy when they kill anyone, from any age, or nationality.
> 
> Let me do as you do, and take exerts from the Bible out of context, and see if I can get you to follow it JoeB.
> 
> Judas went away and hanged himself. Go and do likewise.
> 
> Matthew 27:5 So *Judas* threw the money into the temple and left. Then he *went away and hanged himself.*
> 
> 
> Luke 10:37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "*Go and do likewise*."
> 
> I don't expect you to do this, yet you believe Christians are stupid enough too.. ..
Click to expand...


the translation is a bit faulty------there is no implication that  "happy jews"  ---should smash Babylonian infants-------it is more like a gimpse in the future when
Babylon will ALSO be hit with brutal disaster


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you are right.  Listen to this crazy stuff from the Quran!
> 
> "Blessed is he who smashes thy little ones heads against the stones!"
> 
> Oh, wait. Sorry, that was the BIBLE. My bad.
Click to expand...


no its not------your translation is entirely screwed up-----it is a PREDITION of horrible
tragedy which will also afflict  Babylonians just as the inflicted horrible tragedy-----
that   "blessed are......"  thing is utterly incorrect in connotation.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the Q'ran. Their fundamentals are radical in the first place. Don't act like some war somewhere was responsible for stuff like happened in Paris the other day. That's Grade A BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why you are right.  Listen to this crazy stuff from the Quran!
> 
> "Blessed is he who smashes thy little ones heads against the stones!"
> 
> Oh, wait. Sorry, that was the BIBLE. My bad.
Click to expand...


You presented this before; and we discovered it was something you had taken out of context; no need to rehash. But whereas you find some historical text, the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life. But let's not get wrapped up in semantics; it's not the Jews that any rational person is afraid of safety wise. Who is it now? (Jeapoardy them song plays.....)


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life



Link?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


 Like that's some sort of secret.


----------



## Votto

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


 
I don't think any of these men give a damn about justice or what God thinks.  In fact, I bet if a man was caught in adultery nothing would happen to him.  In fact, where is the man she committed adultery with?  That's right, he is at home sipping goats milk while shagging a sheep.

No, these men just like full control over women, even freeing them to abuse and kill them if they get out of line.  There is no better religion than Islam to achieve this.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Votto said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any of these men give a damn about justice or what God thinks.  In fact, I bet if a man was caught in adultery nothing would happen to him.  In fact, where is the man she committed adultery with?  That's right, he is at home sipping goats milk while shagging a sheep.
> 
> No, these men just like full control over women, even freeing them to abuse and kill them if they get out of line.  There is no better religion than Islam to achieve this.
Click to expand...


Going off the top of my head; so, I won't guess on the numbers; but it does take considerably more witnesses in Islam to convict a man of adultery. It's a system designed to keep their bitches in check for sure.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that's some sort of secret.
Click to expand...



Didn't think so.

Ah, life in Duh Bubble.  Where "facts" are annoyances other people have to deal with. 
Must be bliss, like they say.


----------



## Mertex

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.




How do you translate "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" to meaning don't interfere in other countries' cultures?  Jesus was referring to paying taxes.....the disciples were questioning whether they had to pay them. 

You can't take scripture and twist it to suit your own beliefs.

"Since you Jews are now subject to Caesar - and there is here this evidence of it, that his coin is current amongst you; you would not use it were you not obliged, because all Gentile rites and symbols are an abhorrence to you; - but since Caesar demands nothing of you but his tribute - *the coin stamped with his own image and name - it is your duty to render to him his own denarius for tribute. But spiritual things, such as worship and obedience, give these to God; *for these he demands from you as his right, and by so doing you will offend neither God nor yet Caesar." Our Lord, in his infinite wisdom, avoids the question altogether whether the Jews were rightly in subjection to the Romans. This was a doubtful question. *But there could be no doubt as to the fact that they were tributary. This was made plain by the evidence of the current coin. Now, this being so, it was manifestly the duty of the Jewish people to give to Caesar the tribute money which he demanded of them for the expenses of government, and especially of supporting an army to defend them from their enemies.*


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad for your ignorant bigot ass it was already thousands of years old when Mohammed was born huh Sparky??
> 
> Once again you have nothing but vague wisps of disjointed suspicions.  "Has Islam fingerprints all over it".  Suck my ass, you ignorant swine.
> 
> How many times have we spelled this shit out while you bigots go  ?
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. <<  -- Origins of Honor Killing​
> Where's your link to "fingerprints", Iggie-boy?
> 
> You want an demon -- go for the patriarchy that creates this shit.
> 
> -- or would that hit too close to home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The s_tory claimed to be an event_ in it, however, does.  Else it's not an event.
> 
> I didn't even address the op-ed part of the OP.  At all.  Wasn't interested in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
Click to expand...


It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.


_2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._

_But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._

_9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_

*History:*Stoning is arguably the world's oldest form of execution. It is as old as written literature, and the most common death penalty described in the Bible (prompting Jesus' famous anti-death penalty statement in John 8.7: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). Although it has never been a legal form of execution in the United States, it is practiced elsewhere in the world, primarily in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. 

*Unsavory Overtones:*Stoning is primarily enforced by Islamic fundamentalist _sharia_ law, often for bizarre reasons. In 2004, 13-year-old Zhila Izadyar was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the "crime" of being raped by her older brother. Although the sentence was later overturned due to international outcry, equally horrific stoning sentences are quietly carried out throughout the developing world on a regular basis.

*How It Works:*The prisoner is buried either up to his waist (if male) or up to her shoulders (if female) and then pelted with stones by a crowd of volunteers until obviously battered to death. Under the terms of most fundamentalist courts, the stones must be small enough that death cannot reasonably be expected to result from only one or two blows, but large enough to cause physical harm. The average execution by stoning is extremely painful, lasting at least 10 to 20 minutes.
_Death by Stoning_

_
In 1995, Amnesty International received reports that as many as 10 people may have been stoned to death that year.

In 2002, the Iranian judiciary placed a moratorium on death by stoning.

But such sentences have continued to be reported. And Amnesty said this week that eight men and three women were awaiting the carrying out of sentences of stoning and since 2006 at least six people had been put to death in this manner.

_
_Iran's grim history of death by stoning - BBC News_


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.



Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing. 



TheGreatGatsby said:


> You presented this before; and we discovered it was something you had taken out of context;



Uh, no, guy, there's no context where smashing in the heads of babies is ever a good thing. 



TheGreatGatsby said:


> But whereas you find some historical text, the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life. But let's not get wrapped up in semantics;



Again, I'm betting you are taking this out of Context.  frankly, historically, the Muslims tolerate non-believers pretty well, which is why you have Jews, Christians, Samaritans, Mandean, Ba'hai, Zoroasterians all across the Middle East throughout most of history. 

Meanwhile, you won't find a worshipper of Zeus or Odin or Quezacoatl.  Nor will you find an Arian, a Monophysite, or an Albigensian... because the Christians either killed them or forced them to convert at swordpoint.


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> *9**Happy is the one who seizes your infants
> 
> and dashes them against the rocks.
> 
> Yes, the Edomites were happy when they killed babies, *much as extremists are happy when they kill anyone, from any age, or nationality.
> 
> Let me do as you do, and take exerts from the Bible out of context, and see if I can get you to follow it JoeB.



Except nothing in the verse says the Edomites killed any babies.  They were just happy that Judah had been defeated.  Kind of understandable, as the Israelites and Judah had instigated a shitload of wars against Edom.  

edom had in fact been a vassal of Israel until it was overthrown. 




UllysesS.Archer said:


> Judas went away and hanged himself. Go and do likewise.
> 
> Matthew 27:5 So *Judas* threw the money into the temple and left. Then he *went away and hanged himself.*
> 
> 
> Luke 10:37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "*Go and do likewise*."
> 
> I don't expect you to do this, yet you believe Christians are stupid enough too.. ..



No, Christians are the kind of stupid that lets them get fucked in the ass by the 1%ers, beause they is right with Jesus.   

Wait, I thought Muslims were supposed to be the violent ones again.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that's some sort of secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Ah, life in Duh Bubble.  Where "facts" are annoyances other people have to deal with.
> Must be bliss, like they say.
Click to expand...


Catering to your willful denseness is an annoyance that I learned to not indulge.


----------



## Pogo

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that's some sort of secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Ah, life in Duh Bubble.  Where "facts" are annoyances other people have to deal with.
> Must be bliss, like they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catering to your willful denseness is an annoyance that I learned to not indulge.
Click to expand...


Translation: You can't link it because you pulled it out of your ass.

Lotta mining goes on in there.  Do you have one of those hats with a light on it?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, guy, there's no context where smashing in the heads of babies is ever a good thing.



Not gonna redo the research if you're just gonna cling to your stories. Who is killing who? Who has the culture of murder? It sure as hell ain't the Jews. I could care less about your moral relativism.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like that's some sort of secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Ah, life in Duh Bubble.  Where "facts" are annoyances other people have to deal with.
> Must be bliss, like they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catering to your willful denseness is an annoyance that I learned to not indulge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: You can't link it because you pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Lotta mining goes on in there.  Do you have one of those hats with a light on it?
Click to expand...


 If you think the Q'ran is a book of peace, go for it. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you that the sky is blue.


----------



## Pogo

Looks like you can't substantiate the previous point either.

Very prolific, that ass.  Just keeps pumping out bullshit, expecting different results.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


> Looks like you can't substantiate the previous point either.
> 
> Very prolific, that ass.  Just keeps pumping out bullshit, expecting different results.



I have no doubt that you've been shown the abhorrent language that is in the Q'ran many times over. I'm not gonna spin my wheels for you, a-hole.


----------



## Pogo




----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Pogo said:


>



Doubling down on your stupidity. Not a good bet, tbh.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing.
> 
> It wouldn't need to be all.  Just enough to prove to the rest not to fuck with us anymore.
> 
> Actually that number would be greater as it needs to include all those like you willing to bend over and take one to appease those barbarians.
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You presented this before; and we discovered it was something you had taken out of context;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy, there's no context where smashing in the heads of babies is ever a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> But whereas you find some historical text, the Q'ran is explicit about the justified murder of kaffir and Jews as a way of life. But let's not get wrapped up in semantics;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'm betting you are taking this out of Context.  frankly, historically, the Muslims tolerate non-believers pretty well, which is why you have Jews, Christians, Samaritans, Mandean, Ba'hai, Zoroasterians all across the Middle East throughout most of history.
> 
> Meanwhile, you won't find a worshipper of Zeus or Odin or Quezacoatl.  Nor will you find an Arian, a Monophysite, or an Albigensian... because the Christians either killed them or forced them to convert at swordpoint.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Not gonna redo the research if you're just gonna cling to your stories. Who is killing who? Who has the culture of murder? *It sure as hell ain't the Jews*. I could care less about your moral relativism



Really?  The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.  BUt I'm sure you think they all had it coming. 

Fact is, there's more truly fucked up shit in the Bible than the Koran.  If you "Christians" didn't treat the bible like a software agreement and click "I Agree" without reading it, you'd know this.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't need to be all.  Just enough to prove to the rest not to fuck with us anymore.
> 
> Actually that number would be greater as it needs to include all those like you willing to bend over and take one to appease those barbarians.
Click to expand...


How is not getting involved in their part of the word "appeassing" them.

In addition to the criminal Zionist occupation of Palestine, we've invaded, bombed or occuppied 14 countries in the Middle East.  We've been fighting over there for 25 years now.  Maybe, just maybe, military solutions aren't a solution.

But I'm totally willing to take the Billy-Bob red state voters and sending the lot of you over there to prove me wrong.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't need to be all.  Just enough to prove to the rest not to fuck with us anymore.
> 
> Actually that number would be greater as it needs to include all those like you willing to bend over and take one to appease those barbarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is not getting involved in their part of the word "appeassing" them.
> 
> In addition to the criminal Zionist occupation of Palestine, we've invaded, bombed or occuppied 14 countries in the Middle East.  We've been fighting over there for 25 years now.  Maybe, just maybe, military solutions aren't a solution.
> 
> But I'm totally willing to take the Billy-Bob red state voters and sending the lot of you over there to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I willing to to send your ass down the the South Side of your city to save thugs as a way of showing my liberalism and compassion for black people. I would go there myself you understand, but here I am thousands of miles away from where the blaction is. Go in my stead.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> I willing to to send your ass down the the South Side of your city to save thugs as a way of showing my liberalism and compassion for black people. I would go there myself you understand, but here I am thousands of miles away from where the blaction is. Go in my stead.



You really don't that much about Chicago, do you, Euro-Trash?


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna redo the research if you're just gonna cling to your stories. Who is killing who? Who has the culture of murder? *It sure as hell ain't the Jews*. I could care less about your moral relativism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.  BUt I'm sure you think they all had it coming.
> 
> Fact is, there's more truly fucked up shit in the Bible than the Koran.  If you "Christians" didn't treat the bible like a software agreement and click "I Agree" without reading it, you'd know this.
Click to expand...

Guy...you need to recognize who is the aggressor and who is not.  Who is willing to live in peace and who is not.

This will be difficult for you and your kind.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Guy...you need to recognize who is the aggressor and who is not. Who is willing to live in peace and who is not.
> 
> This will be difficult for you and your kind.



The Aggressor is the guy who comes from somewhere else and takes someone else's land. 

The person who is not is someone who is defending his own land.  

Now, the Zionist SHIT STAINS didn't come from there, they came from Europe.  They came from Europe and stole land from the people who lived there.  They then crowded them into little ghettos and then are wondering why they are fighting back. 

The Zionists definition of "Peace" is "We get to keep all the nice parts of the country and you get to live in the slums".   and for some crazy reason, the Palestinians are no more keen on that idea now than they were 70 years ago.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy...you need to recognize who is the aggressor and who is not. Who is willing to live in peace and who is not.
> 
> This will be difficult for you and your kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressor is the guy who comes from somewhere else and takes someone else's land.
> 
> The person who is not is someone who is defending his own land.
> 
> Now, the Zionist SHIT STAINS didn't come from there, they came from Europe.  They came from Europe and stole land from the people who lived there.  They then crowded them into little ghettos and then are wondering why they are fighting back.
> 
> The Zionists definition of "Peace" is "We get to keep all the nice parts of the country and you get to live in the slums".   and for some crazy reason, the Palestinians are no more keen on that idea now than they were 70 years ago.
Click to expand...

We don't you leave this country then...you stinking invader?


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> We don't you leave this country then...you stinking invader?



I'm one eighth Cherokee... I probably have more right to be here than you do. 

But I do love how you ran like a little bitch from your own definition of "aggressor" so quickly.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't you leave this country then...you stinking invader?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one eighth Cherokee... I probably have more right to be here than you do.
> 
> But I do love how you ran like a little bitch from your own definition of "aggressor" so quickly.
Click to expand...

BS.  Give your house to a native American and get the F out!!!


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't need to be all.  Just enough to prove to the rest not to fuck with us anymore.
> 
> Actually that number would be greater as it needs to include all those like you willing to bend over and take one to appease those barbarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is not getting involved in their part of the word "appeassing" them.
> 
> In addition to the criminal Zionist occupation of Palestine, we've invaded, bombed or occuppied 14 countries in the Middle East.  We've been fighting over there for 25 years now.  Maybe, just maybe, military solutions aren't a solution.
> 
> But I'm totally willing to take the Billy-Bob red state voters and sending the lot of you over there to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Now I get it.  You hate Israel.  

What are the solutions, baking cookies and singing songs?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't you leave this country then...you stinking invader?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one eighth Cherokee... I probably have more right to be here than you do.
> 
> But I do love how you ran like a little bitch from your own definition of "aggressor" so quickly.
Click to expand...


When you start living exactly like your Cherokee ancestors did, make that statement.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we should do if fights in a way where they no longer have the ability to hit back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we are totally going to subdue 1.3 BILLION of them.  You can go out and take them out  yourself, you and the rest of the Billybob Bubba Redneck Militia.  That would be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't need to be all.  Just enough to prove to the rest not to fuck with us anymore.
> 
> Actually that number would be greater as it needs to include all those like you willing to bend over and take one to appease those barbarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is not getting involved in their part of the word "appeassing" them.
> 
> In addition to the criminal Zionist occupation of Palestine, we've invaded, bombed or occuppied 14 countries in the Middle East.  We've been fighting over there for 25 years now.  Maybe, just maybe, military solutions aren't a solution.
> 
> But I'm totally willing to take the Billy-Bob red state voters and sending the lot of you over there to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


Always willing for someone else to do the job you're either incapable or too much of a pussy to do yourself.  More like a combination of both with varying degrees of inability and pussy fluctuating day to day.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' give a fuck that you think forms of murder existed before Islam. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain. The reality is Islam fosters these killings. So, save us your dumbass history lesson, sparky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You meant to deflect like a little bitch maggot that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost _
> _the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute _
> _ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions _
> _for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.     _
> _FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not _
> _being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy _
> _was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated _
> _like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if _
> _you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened _
> _to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he _
> _sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----_
> _in fact-----it is a fraud_
Click to expand...


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, those of us with *complete *brains have a right hemisphere, which gives us the context, which tells us an ancient cultural artifact that has been recorded all over the world from ancient Rome to the Aztec empire, and still goes on prominently in the Subcontinent today (where its perps happen to be Hindus and Sikhs) cannot possibly have had any kind of roots in "Islam".
> 
> The Holey Babble story referenced in the OP --- in which Jesus walks up to stop a stoning about to take place --- in itself tells us it was already extant THEN --- some six centuries before Mohammad was even *born*.
> 
> Linear time, vacuum-brain.
> 
> Incidentally it's not a "history lesson" as much as Anthropology.  But the fact that you regard such crucial background info as "dumb" and would rather run with hair-on-fire bigotry because your head isn't big enough to accommodate realities, just confirms my signline all over again.
> 
> 
> Hey Gasbag ----
> 
> 36 simultaneous tsunamis have wiped out the city of Port Fart, Idaho.  This opened up a crevice in the continental shelf that sent the entire slab of western North America out to the Pacific Ocean where it declared itself the independent country of Canadifornia and launched five nukes at your house three minutes ago.
> 
> I don't have a link though.
> 
> You buyin'?  Or are you gonna "deflect" asking for "evidence"?
> 
> Better run, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
Click to expand...




Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.

In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
The Woman Caught in Adultery


*There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...


You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?


----------



## Pogo

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who at any time said that stonings didn't take place before Islam? Is that issue? No. You want to make it the issue though to ignore the real issue(s). Just like you want to trifle over links (habitually) to avoid the issue(s). Your game is stale and old. If you don't like being called out, address the actual issue at hand for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thing has Islam fingerprints all over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a sh** what you think the origin of this "custom" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...



I don't think Rosie's ever linked anything ever.  And we did all this before, stonings and exhortations to stoning are all over the OT:

*Deuteronomy 21:18-21*
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then *all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones*. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

* Leviticus 24:16*
Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.* All the congregation shall stone him*. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

* Acts 7:59-60*
And *as they were stoning* Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

* Numbers 15:32-36*
While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; *all the congregation shall stone him with stones* outside the camp.” And* all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses*.

* Leviticus 20:27*
“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. *They shall be stoned with stones*; their blood shall be upon them.”

* Deuteronomy 13:10*
*You shall stone him to death with stones*, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

(all listed here)

"Everybody must get stoned" --- Bob Dylan


----------



## Picaro

Mertex said:


> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research



Joachim Jeremias' book *Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus* is an excellent book on Jewish politics and culture in that era.

_Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic & Social Conditions During the New Testament Period,_ trans. F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave (1969; German ed.: 1967)

Joachim Jeremias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recently re-published in hardback. Well worth the price for those with a real interest in history and the environment that incubated Christianity; it provides plenty of context for much of the New Testament and passages that a lot of people find confusing. Some reviews here:

Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (CBD Exclusive!)


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.



Israel ain't in the business of assassinating innocents. You can keep your Muslim Brotherhood propaganda to yourself.


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several of your fellow traveler ignorami have done so, and as noted they've been refuted repeatedly, but within the confines of this thread --- YOU did:
> 
> --- which ironically was immediately followed by another sentence that shoots the first directly in the foot:
> 
> -- and it ain't what "I think" the origin is -- it's what it IS is.  Your burying your head in the sand pretending that some ancient tribal custom with no religious roots is "religious" -- doesn't make it so just because you choose a path of bigoted ignorance, that being all your tiny little mind can grapple with.
> 
> Once again, even in the OP you have the same thing going on in a biblical story..... *six hundred years* before Mohammad was even born.  Does that event have "Islam fingerprints all over it"?  Or was it Jewish fingerprints, and six hundred years later they traded it to Islam for cash and a player to be named later?
> 
> Dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
Click to expand...


Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.  


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


*BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*

_Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.


----------



## Pogo

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
Click to expand...


She's peddled it before -- what she's trying to do is imply that the heavy editing at the Coucil of Nicea in the fourth century might have "inserted" that story in there, rather than it being original material.  She tried that with me.  While there was a lot of editing going on at Nicea, what she forgets is (a) even if it were true, 325 AD is *still *three centuries before Mohammad was even born, and (b) there are all those references to, and even orders from God to, stonings in the Old Testament, as I listed twice earlier, which are still older, some easily a thousand years or more before Mohammad.  Not to mention failing to supply any reason Constantine and/or the Council would have had to insert a stoning where none had existed.

Rosie's got challenges with (a) linear time, (b) linking anything, and (c) trying to run the same song and dance that's already been disproven, looking for a different result.


----------



## Picaro

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the story in the NT  has the fingerprints of Constantine all over it.
> Executions could be ordered only by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem---
> according to jewish law and in the life-time of jesus  ONLY BY ROME
> according to the  NT.      ie----the story is not history.     The nicest
> thing that anyone could say about it is----it's a  "parable"  -----but
> the reality is----more likely----it is a lie.      However ---stoning is a method
> of execution in jewish law  (or was)  for both men and women.   There is
> no actual record of any such executions-------none---except one-----
> JAMES  during the time that decrees of execution could be issued
> only by ROME.     It could have been a mob lynching
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
Click to expand...


While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.


----------



## Mertex

Pogo said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's peddled it before -- what she's trying to do is imply that the heavy editing at the Coucil of Nicea in the fourth century might have "inserted" that story in there, rather than it being original material.  She tried that with me.  While there was a lot of editing going on at Nicea, what she forgets is (a) even if it were true, 325 AD is *still *three centuries before Mohammad was even born, and (b) there are all those references to, and even orders from God to, stonings in the Old Testament, as I listed twice earlier, which are still older, some easily a thousand years or more before Mohammad.  Not to mention failing to supply any reason Constantine and/or the Council would have had to insert a stoning where none had existed.
> 
> Rosie's got challenges with (a) linear time, (b) linking anything, and (c) trying to run the same song and dance that's already been disproven, looking for a different result.
Click to expand...



Not only that.......her language (Da Joos) makes her no better than the terrorists we are having to deal currently.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's peddled it before -- what she's trying to do is imply that the heavy editing at the Coucil of Nicea in the fourth century might have "inserted" that story in there, rather than it being original material.  She tried that with me.  While there was a lot of editing going on at Nicea, what she forgets is (a) even if it were true, 325 AD is *still *three centuries before Mohammad was even born, and (b) there are all those references to, and even orders from God to, stonings in the Old Testament, as I listed twice earlier, which are still older, some easily a thousand years or more before Mohammad.  Not to mention failing to supply any reason Constantine and/or the Council would have had to insert a stoning where none had existed.
> 
> Rosie's got challenges with (a) linear time, (b) linking anything, and (c) trying to run the same song and dance that's already been disproven, looking for a different result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that.......her language (Da Joos) makes her no better than the terrorists we are having to deal currently.
Click to expand...


using the term   "DA JOOOS" makes me one of the infant throat slitting rapists whose asses you lick?       You have asserted that the gospel describing the
putative event that a whole bunch of gangsters dragged a woman into the gutter
and tried to execute her without benefit of a trial  for  "adultery"    was WITNESSED
by a person who  "walked and talked"  to Jesus----- YEAH ???   and just who was that?    BTW   Luke never met jesus and did not even speak his language


----------



## irosie91

BTW   mertex has admitted that the contention of Christian scholars that
the romans removed the right of jews to execute people is a pile of shit lies


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's peddled it before -- what she's trying to do is imply that the heavy editing at the Coucil of Nicea in the fourth century might have "inserted" that story in there, rather than it being original material.  She tried that with me.  While there was a lot of editing going on at Nicea, what she forgets is (a) even if it were true, 325 AD is *still *three centuries before Mohammad was even born, and (b) there are all those references to, and even orders from God to, stonings in the Old Testament, as I listed twice earlier, which are still older, some easily a thousand years or more before Mohammad.  Not to mention failing to supply any reason Constantine and/or the Council would have had to insert a stoning where none had existed.
> 
> Rosie's got challenges with (a) linear time, (b) linking anything, and (c) trying to run the same song and dance that's already been disproven, looking for a different result.
Click to expand...


Mertex  "agrees"   with pogo's idiotic reconstruction------part of which includes his 
FASCINATING REVELATION  that  Muhummad was born hundreds of years after
the Council of Nicea was convened     WATT GENIUSES       The finale-----POGO INSISTS that that he has PROVEN that the story of Pharisees dragging an adulteress into the gutter to stone her without benefit of trial is ------a kinda
normal event in the time of Jesus.    Pogo spits on the claim by Christian scholars
that  ROME has utterly removed the right of jewish courts or jews in general to
issue death sentences------SPIT POGO  SPIT_------mertex loves your disdain for
Christian claims


----------



## irosie91

Picaro said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a parable........it is an event that happened and recorded in the NT.  You don't have to believe it, but you have no proof that it is a lie.  And, your assertion that there is no record of any such executions......is the lie.
> 
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them._ _3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group_ _4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery._ _5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women._ _Now what do you say?”_ _6 They were using this question as a trap,_ _in order to have a basis for accusing him._
> 
> _But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger._ _7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone_ _at her.”_ _8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground._
> 
> _9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there._ _10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
Click to expand...


while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally? 
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?  

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a  PRACTICE


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Now I get it. You hate Israel.
> 
> What are the solutions, baking cookies and singing songs?



Yes, I do hate Religious Apartheid states that antagonize a whole region against us.  

My solution is pretty simple.  We stop supporting Israel. We stop sticking our noses in their business.  

They aren't attacking us because they "hate our freedom".  They aren't attacking Costa Rica, they aren't attacking Japan.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Always willing for someone else to do the job you're either incapable or too much of a pussy to do yourself. More like a combination of both with varying degrees of inability and pussy fluctuating day to day.



No, guy, you are a little confused.  You shitheads talk smack all day about how you want to go to war with these people, but you usually don't go down to a recruiters office and sign up. 

You see, what I would do, I would have a universal draft.  And if you are the kid of a politician or a CEO or a loud-mouth asshole on hate radio, you get put in the special elite airborne unit that will be the first deployed.  

Betcha we won't be so keen to go to war after that.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ain't in the business of assassinating innocents. You can keep your Muslim Brotherhood propaganda to yourself.
Click to expand...


Hey, guys, even ISRAELI sources admit that was the case. 

Here you go, from Haertz- an Israeli publication. 

Report finds high civilian death toll during Gaza war - Diplomacy and Defense

The youngest to die was a 4-day-old girl, the oldest a 92-year-old man.
They were among at least 844 Palestinians killed as a result of airstrikes on homes during Israel's summer war with the Islamic militant group, Hamas.
....
According to preliminary U.N. figures, at least 1,483 Palestinian civilians were killed in the war - 66 percent of the overall death toll of 2,205.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always willing for someone else to do the job you're either incapable or too much of a pussy to do yourself. More like a combination of both with varying degrees of inability and pussy fluctuating day to day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, you are a little confused.  You shitheads talk smack all day about how you want to go to war with these people, but you usually don't go down to a recruiters office and sign up.
> 
> You see, what I would do, I would have a universal draft.  And if you are the kid of a politician or a CEO or a loud-mouth asshole on hate radio, you get put in the special elite airborne unit that will be the first deployed.
> 
> Betcha we won't be so keen to go to war after that.
Click to expand...


Universal draft?  Does that mean you are included or do you not know what universal means.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Universal draft? Does that mean you are included or do you not know what universal means.



I already have my DD214, thanks.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universal draft? Does that mean you are included or do you not know what universal means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have my DD214, thanks.
Click to expand...


Universal means all dumbass.  That includes you.


----------



## ChrisL

Muslim clerics who are "scholars of Islam" say that stoning is a "prescribed" punishment by Muhammed.  

Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Stoning - WikiIslam


----------



## Picaro

irosie91 said:


> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE



I'm not in the least bit confused. And your silly point about stonings is irrelevant to anything I've said.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel ain't in the business of assassinating innocents. You can keep your Muslim Brotherhood propaganda to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, guys, even ISRAELI sources admit that was the case.
> 
> Here you go, from Haertz- an Israeli publication.
> 
> Report finds high civilian death toll during Gaza war - Diplomacy and Defense
> 
> The youngest to die was a 4-day-old girl, the oldest a 92-year-old man.
> They were among at least 844 Palestinians killed as a result of airstrikes on homes during Israel's summer war with the Islamic militant group, Hamas.
> ....
> According to preliminary U.N. figures, at least 1,483 Palestinian civilians were killed in the war - 66 percent of the overall death toll of 2,205.
Click to expand...


Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.


----------



## Muhammed

I think I got stoned with a few adulterous women. I'm not telling no names though.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Muslim clerics who are "scholars of Islam" say that stoning is a "prescribed" punishment by Muhammed.
> 
> Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Stoning - WikiIslam



>> *WikiIslam* is an anti-Islamic wiki, describing itself as "[a wiki with] 2500+ critical articles on various areas of Islam based on its own sources, the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars."

It was launched on September 4, 2006, in collaboration with Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International (FFI) who provided the site with server space and exposure. In August 2008, the site was moved out of FFI's server and since then it has been operating independently, remaining unaffiliated with or owned by any organization.

Its criticisms of Islam, its adherents, and its supporters are _very_ sharp, and its outlook on these is consistently negative. << -- RationalWiki​


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
Click to expand...


Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy.  A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order.  The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church".  So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community.  It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women.  It's the same mentality.

But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it *existed *in that time --- regardless of its legal status.

Nice try, no cigar.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy.  A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order.  The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church".  So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community.  It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women.  It's the same mentality.
> 
> But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it *existed *in that time --- regardless of its legal status.
> 
> Nice try, no cigar.
Click to expand...


good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.     That lynchings were a custom
of  the European Christian invaders of the Americas is well documented.   There is
no evidence whatsoever that lynchings were a custom of the jews of  Judea/Israel
as a response to sexual indiscretion.     In fact the actual judicial handling
of such events is  EXTENSIVELY  documented.    That stoning was one of the
methods of execution in jewish jurisprudence is ALSO extensively documented----
but ----the fact is that it was not done for a single event of adultery-----also well
documented.    That stoning was and REMAINS  a prominent aspect of Islamic
jurisprudence for ANY sexual indiscretion by a woman in Islamic law is also
extensively documented.    For the sake of completeness-----I will add that political
assassination -----did happen-----now and then in the period of time under consideration in  Judea/Israel ---ie circa the lifetime of  Jesus.    Stoning is part of
the law of Judaism in ancient times-----albeit rarely actually used.    Stoning is a part of  Islamic law in current times and often employed


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy.  A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order.  The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church".  So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community.  It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women.  It's the same mentality.
> 
> But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it *existed *in that time --- regardless of its legal status.
> 
> Nice try, no cigar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.     That lynchings were a custom
> of  the European Christian invaders of the Americas is well documented.   There is
> no evidence whatsoever that lynchings were a custom of the jews of  Judea/Israel
> as a response to sexual indiscretion.     In fact the actual judicial handling
> of such events is  EXTENSIVELY  documented.    That stoning was one of the
> methods of execution in jewish jurisprudence is ALSO extensively documented----
> but ----the fact is that it was not done for a single event of adultery-----also well
> documented.    That stoning was and REMAINS  a prominent aspect of Islamic
> jurisprudence for ANY sexual indiscretion by a woman in Islamic law is also
> extensively documented.    For the sake of completeness-----I will add that political
> assassination -----did happen-----now and then in the period of time under consideration in  Judea/Israel ---ie circa the lifetime of  Jesus.    Stoning is part of
> the law of Judaism in ancient times-----albeit rarely actually used.    Stoning is a part of  Islamic law in current times and often employed
Click to expand...



Talking about Johnnys come-lately......325 years later and they're supposed to be more knowledgeable about what went on during Jesus' time than those who actually walked alongside Jesus?  

The *First Council of Nicaea* (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops *convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.*


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The situation in  Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
> the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped  DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
> ANYONE.     However----beyond that assertion is the FACT  that executions
> for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME  had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
> FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
> being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
> was regarding  "execution"    FIND A LOOPHOLE.    Adultery was not treated
> like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED.     Read the NT----if
> you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there.    What happened
> to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN?    was he
> sentenced to death?       I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
> in fact-----it is a fraud_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
Click to expand...


No, dummy, the only one confused here is you.  Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah.  Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.




> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE



Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT?  You are so delusional.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irosie>>>
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex>>>
> No, dummy, the only one confused here is you.  Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah.  Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.
> 
> Irosie>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mertex>>>
> Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT?  You are so delusional.
Click to expand...


irosie>>>
If you refer to the entire  "jewish bible"   as  "the torah"     you  are making a mistake.-----not that it Is either important or I care.     That which is properly called
"the torah"  is the first five books of that which you call "the jewish bible"----the psalms are------another book.. 

At no point did I suggest a name for the story of jesus and the adulteress-----I suggested that which the story COULD represent.    I was being generous----I am
aware of the fact that lots of people actually imagine it represents typical "justice" 
in accordance with Jewish jurisprudence-------It,  absolutely,  does not..    It is so
much at variance with the practice of those times that it is obviously NOT HISTORIC.       It is likely to be a parable.      I wonder if you could tell me what 
role did  'pharisees'   play in jewish jurisprudence at that time   AS "PHARISEES"???     according to that which your sunday school teacher
taught you?.     In the "story"    they seem to be a lynch gang which is very much
what   ROMANS thought of them.    Pharisees would have been delighted to
lynch your  SAINT PONTIUS PILATE but in REAL history they opposed
execution of adulteresses.    Pharisees would have liked to lynch lots of romans---
and probably did do so a few times.     Today-----Israel has no capital punishment
except for  ROMANS   like  Adolf Eichmann----because of PHARISEE IDEOLOGY. 
I have told you facts you did not likely get in Sunday school.

in the bible----jesus and the stone throwers is attributed to a  "JOHN"    Historically
there is no one named  JOHN   who talked and walked with Jesus other than
JOHN THE BAPTIST   who was probably an historic character------the other 
"JOHN"   did not exist as a  separate person.    Lots of odds and ends of writings
in the NICEAN BIBLE are attributed to   "JOHN"     it is probably something like 
JOHN DOE,     Sorry----mertex----but that is the way it is.   No one can identify
that  'JOHN'


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> [
> 
> Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.



The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.

And then you wonder why they want to kill you.


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.
> 
> And then you wonder why they want to kill you.
Click to expand...


I do not wonder why muslims want to kill  "us"      I have interacted with muslims
for more than 45 years------so I do know.     I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> I do not wonder why muslims want to kill "us" I have interacted with muslims
> for more than 45 years------so I do know. I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new



Frankly, I couldn't imagine a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian or Pagan interacting with you for more than 45 minutes without wanting to do great bodily harm to you. 

You are just that obnoxious.


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not wonder why muslims want to kill "us" I have interacted with muslims
> for more than 45 years------so I do know. I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I couldn't imagine a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian or Pagan interacting with you for more than 45 minutes without wanting to do great bodily harm to you.
> 
> You are just that obnoxious.
Click to expand...


oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas



That whistling sound you hear is the point going right over your head.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.
> 
> And then you wonder why they want to kill you.
Click to expand...


I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That whistling sound you hear is the point going right over your head.
Click to expand...


Or it could be from the pierced tongue.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.



the sad thing is you do mean it. 

The Zionists kill 2000 Palestinians. No big deal.

We kill half a million Iraqis over weapons that don't exist. No big deal. 

Some angry young Muslims in France see this and engage in a terrorist attack "OH MY GOD IT'S A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS WHAT BARBARIANS WE NEED TO TOTALLY GO TO WAR!!!!"   

not that you would ever sign up. Get some brown kid from Chicago to do it.


----------



## irosie91

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the sad thing is you do mean it.
> 
> The Zionists kill 2000 Palestinians. No big deal.
> 
> We kill half a million Iraqis over weapons that don't exist. No big deal.
> 
> Some angry young Muslims in France see this and engage in a terrorist attack "OH MY GOD IT'S A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS WHAT BARBARIANS WE NEED TO TOTALLY GO TO WAR!!!!"
> 
> not that you would ever sign up. Get some brown kid from Chicago to do it.
Click to expand...


I served in the US navy------I do not recall a whole lot of brown kids from
Chicago----lots of very white skinned southerners


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irosie>>>
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex>>>
> No, dummy, the only one confused here is you.  Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah. * Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.*
> 
> Irosie>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mertex>>>
> Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT?  You are so delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> irosie>>>
> If you refer to the entire  "jewish bible"   as  "the torah"     you  are making a mistake.-----not that it Is either important or I care.     That which is properly called
> "the torah"  is the first five books of that which you call "the jewish bible"----the psalms are------another book..
Click to expand...


Are you intentionally dense or is it something you can't help?  I fully explained about the Torah - and have now highlighted in red and bigger print so maybe you'll be able to read it this time.



> At no point did I suggest a name for the story of jesus and the adulteress-----I suggested that which the story COULD represent.    I was being generous----I am
> aware of the fact that lots of people actually imagine it represents typical "justice"
> in accordance with Jewish jurisprudence-------It,  absolutely,  does not..    It is so
> much at variance with the practice of those times that it is obviously NOT HISTORIC.       It is likely to be a parable.      I wonder if you could tell me what
> role did  'pharisees'   play in jewish jurisprudence at that time   AS "PHARISEES"???     according to that which your sunday school teacher
> taught you?.     In the "story"    they seem to be a lynch gang which is very much
> what   ROMANS thought of them.    Pharisees would have been delighted to
> lynch your  SAINT PONTIUS PILATE but in REAL history they opposed
> execution of adulteresses.    Pharisees would have liked to lynch lots of romans---
> and probably did do so a few times.     Today-----Israel has no capital punishment
> except for  ROMANS   like  Adolf Eichmann----because of PHARISEE IDEOLOGY.
> I have told you facts you did not likely get in Sunday school.


I'm not even going to bother addressing this gibberish as you are just rambling and addressing other topics and pretending to know something when you have already proven you really don't know much.



> in the bible----jesus and the stone throwers is attributed to a  "JOHN"    Historically
> there is no one named  JOHN   who talked and walked with Jesus other than
> JOHN THE BAPTIST   who was probably an historic character------the other
> "JOHN"   did not exist as a  separate person.    Lots of odds and ends of writings
> in the NICEAN BIBLE are attributed to   "JOHN"     it is probably something like
> JOHN DOE,     Sorry----mertex----but that is the way it is.   No one can identify
> that  'JOHN'



Again....more gibberish.  Of course there was another John.  John the disciple is not the same as John the Baptist....and your comment "who was probably an historic character" regarding John the Baptist doesn't even make any sense.  

Here is some reference to John the Apostle....you need to acquaint yourself a little better before spewing such ignorant gibberish that doesn't even deserve a response.

History of John the Disciple of Jesus

John the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your claim that your source is more accurate because my source (the disciples) was not written till 200 years after the fact, when your source wasn't even around until 325 AD and the disciples were actually around at the time of Jesus, discredits anything else you might have to say.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
Jesus


----------



## Picaro

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn joey...
> 
> Your question is typical left wing kookery. No said one said bombing is civilized dummy. Why the strawman?
> 
> Christians don't bomb people. Corrupt lying pols bomb people...pols that you love and adore...but only if they are D's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your are engaging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Of course, those Christians who do  unchristian things like wars and concentration camps and genocides, they aren't Christians at all!
> 
> No matter how much they say they love Jesus.
> 
> So again, how is carpet bombing more civilized than Stoning.  Still waiting for you to answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians are not the problem in our world today.  It is Muslims who are the problem, and a worldwide problem at that.
Click to expand...


Actually Christians never were a problem relative to its enemies' fun activities, certainly not anywhere near the problems pagans and Muslims have been. Much of the gibberish is based on old Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda from the 17th century. Adding up the alleged death tolls attributed to da Evul Xians are absurdities given the populations of Europe when these 'millions' were supposedly murdered; Europe would have a modern population of around 6 or 7 today if even a fraction of the gibberish was true.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the sad thing is you do mean it.
> 
> The Zionists kill 2000 Palestinians. No big deal.
> 
> We kill half a million Iraqis over weapons that don't exist. No big deal.
> 
> Some angry young Muslims in France see this and engage in a terrorist attack "OH MY GOD IT'S A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS WHAT BARBARIANS WE NEED TO TOTALLY GO TO WAR!!!!"
> 
> not that you would ever sign up. Get some brown kid from Chicago to do it.
Click to expand...


Palestinians have no interest in peace; I shed not one tear for them (other than the truly actual innocent victims and not your made up ones). We didn't kill half a million Iraqis; you're an idiot. And what is the magic number of terrorist attacks that we must endure before we're allowed to take a hard stand? In you're world, that bull shit is a natural response; talk about nonsense!


----------



## JoeB131

irosie91 said:


> I served in the US navy------I do not recall a whole lot of brown kids from
> Chicago----lots of very white skinned southerners



sure you did... 

Where did we fight a big naval battle in the last few wars?  Oh, that's right. That fighting was done by all the brown kids from the Army and Marines.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Palestinians have no interest in peace; I shed not one tear for them (other than the truly actual innocent victims and not your made up ones). We didn't kill half a million Iraqis; you're an idiot. And what is the magic number of terrorist attacks that we must endure before we're allowed to take a hard stand? In you're world, that bull shit is a natural response; talk about nonsense!



There are no military solutions to Terrorism.  Eventually people just get fed up with and give up. 

Just ask the British in Ireland. 

Why should the Palestinians want "peace".  They want the Jews the fuck off _their_ land. And eventually, they'll get it.  Half of Young Israelis say they'd immigrate if they could.


----------



## koshergrl

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.


Uh, that is not what he meant.


----------



## koshergrl

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.


That's why I ignore him. Dishonest as the day is long.


----------



## koshergrl

MaryL said:


> You know, Muslim counties TAX non Muslims?Islam is intolerant of non Muslims? gays, Christians, converts, agnostics. Islam won't tolerate that . Everything  in the modern word,these  backwards twits forbid and would  destroy. That's Islam. Why do American  liberals support this bulocks?


Because they are twisted, perverted sucks.


----------



## The Great Goose

koshergrl said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, Muslim counties TAX non Muslims?Islam is intolerant of non Muslims? gays, Christians, converts, agnostics. Islam won't tolerate that . Everything  in the modern word,these  backwards twits forbid and would  destroy. That's Islam. Why do American  liberals support this bulocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are twisted, perverted sucks.
Click to expand...

Takes one to know one you homosexual.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo
> 
> As an illogical defense to the modern Barbaric Islam custom of stoning women for (alleged) sex, you've consistently attempted to argue the origin of stoning as a defense for barbaric Islam. You've done it in countless other threads; you've done it immediately in this thread. I don't even indulge your dead on arrival argument other than to say this is what you're doing. You are a hack that is afraid of serious discussion on this matter. And you'll attempt to divert future threads like this in the same manner just like hacks do.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I ignore him. Dishonest as the day is long.
Click to expand...


And you're dishonest enough to take the strawman of a convicted pathological liar who just makes it up as he goes?

That particular fable was refuted way back in post 154 -- TWO WEEKS ago.  Read much?

And when challenged to come up with a quote or link, he trotted out the same thing he always does ---

look kids!  It's Mister Zero!




​-- then he runs away and hides because that's what he's made of.  
​Yeah you tell us all about "dishonest", bitch.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have no interest in peace; I shed not one tear for them (other than the truly actual innocent victims and not your made up ones). We didn't kill half a million Iraqis; you're an idiot. And what is the magic number of terrorist attacks that we must endure before we're allowed to take a hard stand? In you're world, that bull shit is a natural response; talk about nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no military solutions to Terrorism.  Eventually people just get fed up with and give up.
> 
> Just ask the British in Ireland.
> 
> Why should the Palestinians want "peace".  They want the Jews the fuck off _their_ land. And eventually, they'll get it.  Half of Young Israelis say they'd immigrate if they could.
Click to expand...

If we could just get rid of those damn Christians...all would be wonderful....right lil' joey?

Christians strike again...US Special Forces storm hotel in Mali following jihadi hostage crisis


----------



## Picaro

irosie91 said:


> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.



Drivel.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe.  The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.
> 
> In the third century, the writer of the church order the _Didascalia Apostolorum_ invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. *This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians.* The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” *Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate,* while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. *Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition,* worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
> The Woman Caught in Adultery
> 
> 
> *There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity.* Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. *There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.*
> The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are citing the  "OPINIONS"    of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
> interpret the  ODYSSEY.   --------    More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
> by writers that never met jesus.     Use your head.     I have no doubt that the  bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL          so what?        Your allusion to  'biblical manuscripts"  are just
> that--------nothing more.      You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it.  The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time.   Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about.  Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.
> 
> 
> Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.
> 
> 
> *BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:*
> 
> 1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.
> 
> 2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
> (snip)
> The Authors of the New Testament
> 
> 
> If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. *This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:*
> 
> _Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught_. [5uke 1:1-4]
> 
> Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.
> 
> The Dating of the New Testament
> 
> 
> Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.
> 
> The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
> You are still confused,   Picaro.       What jewish "theology"   was transmitted orally?
> I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
> put in books------but just to what do YOU refer?     The psalms?    Genesis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dummy, the only one confused here is you.  Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah.  Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
> by  "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
> be described  as an  ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
> did to blacks they accused of  "touching a white woman"       Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
> a  PRACTICE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT?  You are so delusional.
Click to expand...


neither do you-----none of those "original writings'  by people who KNEW and walked with Jesus has survived-------not even a single scribble.    Just about
all of the "biographies"   you presented are pure conjecture.   BUT most of all---
the story of the adulteress is an OBVIOUS  BS job designed specifically to smear
Pharisees.     Pharisees had no interest in forming a lynch gang in order to lynch
putative adulteresses.     Christian scholars INSIST  that jews had no power at that
time to execute anyone----ROME SAID SO-------Christian scholars also insist that Pharisees were NIT PICKERS about law-------but somehow in the adulteress story they all get together and SPIT AND SHIT on the absolute requirements of law and lynch a putative adulteress despite the fact that  ONLY THE SANHEDREN IN JERUSALEM could issue an order of execution.     The story makes no sense.  
The only part that makes sense is  Jesus---the Pharisee who councils 
AGAINST  the concept of executing a casual adulteress-------<<<<  that was a Pharisee POV of at that time.   The people Pharisees were out to kill were people
like your  other 'god'   SAINT PONTIUS PILATE


----------



## irosie91

Picaro said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drivel.
Click to expand...


what is  DRIVEL about fact?    You know something about jewish jurisprudence
during the life-time of Jesus? .    According to the idiot story-----the TEACHERS OF
THE LAW   were involved-------the teachers of the law went out of their way to
violate the law? -----and having gone out of their way to violate the law they
caved for an itinerant impoverished powerless  "preacher".


----------



## Mertex

Picaro said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drivel.
Click to expand...


Sorry I wasted time trying to educate someone so uninformed acting like she knows anything about anything........

Doesn't give any links......she must have made up all that crap she spews......


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus




The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> If we could just get rid of those damn Christians...all would be wonderful....right lil' joey?
> 
> Christians strike again...US Special Forces storm hotel in Mali following jihadi hostage crisis



why can't you stay on the subject? 

You see, here's the thing.  During the Cold War, our argument with the Middle East wasn't about "religion".  We were all worried about all these secularist, socialist strongmen like Nasser and Assad and Qaddafi and Arafat who were happy to throw in with the USSR.  

Then Reagan and the CIA and the Mossad had the wacky idea that we needed to encourage religious fervor to beat the bad old commies before they taught girls how to read or something. 

Even Hamas was encouraged by the Mossad to counter the influence of the largely secular Arafat. 

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

_"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric._


----------



## MaryL

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


 If there is a GOD, he dosn't seem to care


Mrs. M. said:


> I am betting Obama isn't using this instance as a example of cultural diversity. Because,  it is just that, an example of what is wrong with diversity. Stoning, genital mutilations.Suicide bombers. Not so positive for diversity, Mr. President. Listen to Us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


----------



## Mertex

MaryL said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a GOD, he dosn't seem to care
Click to expand...


There is a God and He does care.........it's some of those that call themselves His children that don't seem to care....we're supposed to be His representatives but so many on the right that call themselves His children choose to ignore what he demands of us and instead rely on their guns to protect them and don't care about loving their neighbor or being kind to strangers.....Sad....[/QUOTE]


----------



## MaryL

God cares? After living through both my mom and dad's deaths from cancer, And seeing  people die in random and horrible accidents, God does NOT care in the slightest. Islam presumes to know the mind of God, and these other Muslim  idiots presume to know what rules (sharia law) "Allah" wants, and strap on bombs to kill infidels to get into heaven, drink the purple kool-aid. Enough!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have no interest in peace; I shed not one tear for them (other than the truly actual innocent victims and not your made up ones). We didn't kill half a million Iraqis; you're an idiot. And what is the magic number of terrorist attacks that we must endure before we're allowed to take a hard stand? In you're world, that bull shit is a natural response; talk about nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no military solutions to Terrorism.  Eventually people just get fed up with and give up.
> 
> Just ask the British in Ireland.
> 
> Why should the Palestinians want "peace".  They want the Jews the fuck off _their_ land. And eventually, they'll get it.  Half of Young Israelis say they'd immigrate if they could.
Click to expand...


Then, the Israelis should just kick the Arabs out of their lands.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
Click to expand...


you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the 
blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
       "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I wasted time trying to educate someone so uninformed acting like she knows anything about anything........
> 
> Doesn't give any links......she must have made up all that crap she spews......
Click to expand...


I know where you learned your crap-------I attended sunday school with a protestant friend-----as a child----at least a dozen times-----later in life I worked with one ex-priest ----and one----ex student priest ------they "KNEW"  so much ----just like you do.       They were not silly guys----they actually thought they knew


----------



## koshergrl

A whole lotta crazy in this thread.


----------



## irosie91

koshergrl said:


> A whole lotta crazy in this thread.



It would seem crazy to any person who actually believes that the bibles
are WRITTEN BY G-D.     I understand your dilemma


----------



## RWS

Have you folks figured it out yet?


----------



## irosie91

RWS said:


> Have you folks figured it out yet?



yes-----I have it all figured out-----feel free to ask questions


----------



## Picaro

Mertex said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT  that is not
> at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
> putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I wasted time trying to educate someone so uninformed acting like she knows anything about anything........
> 
> Doesn't give any links......she must have made up all that crap she spews......
Click to expand...


Well, just post for the Peanut Gallery on issues like these instead of playing "I Touched You Last!!!" with ignorant nut jobs and astroturfers who have to rewrite history in order to invent nonsense and a fantasy "Metro-sexual Hippy Communist Jesus" who, just by pure coincidence, of course, would fit in perfectly with modern PCness, and then go around pretending to school Da Evul Xians on The 'Real' Jesus, using half-baked gibberish.

The ridiculous stuff on the Council of Nicea and what it allegedly did is particularly  funny; I guess we can discuss that, since it seems to be a key event they need to distort.


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Then, the Israelis should just kick the Arabs out of their lands.



Guy, a Jew is never happy unless he has someone he can exploit economically.  they want the Arabs to do all the jobs that "God's Chosen People" are too good to do.


----------



## Mertex

MaryL said:


> God cares? After living through both my mom and dad's deaths from cancer, And seeing  people die in random and horrible accidents, God does NOT care in the slightest. Islam presumes to know the mind of God, and these other Muslim  idiots presume to know what rules (sharia law) "Allah" wants, and strap on bombs to kill infidels to get into heaven, drink the purple kool-aid. Enough!



You seem to think that because people die, that God must not care.  Death has been part of life since the beginning......everyone dies....and while it is sad and painful to see a loved one die, death is not the end for believers, just the beginning.  Accidents are caused by people mostly through carelessness or bad behavior, if God were to interfere in each and every case in everyone's life, we'd be no more than puppets and you'd be complaining about that.

And, don't compare the true God, Jesus, to the god the muslims pay homage to.  That's blasphemy.  Jesus doesn't ask his followers to commit crimes in order to prove loyalty.....but just like in Islam, we also have Christians who follow their own concept of what God wants, and they commit crimes and behave un-Godly thinking they are doing it for God.  But, you can't blame their actions on the rest of us.  You need clarification, but it doesn't seem you care to have it.  Sad.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could just get rid of those damn Christians...all would be wonderful....right lil' joey?
> 
> Christians strike again...US Special Forces storm hotel in Mali following jihadi hostage crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why can't you stay on the subject?
> 
> You see, here's the thing.  During the Cold War, our argument with the Middle East wasn't about "religion".  We were all worried about all these secularist, socialist strongmen like Nasser and Assad and Qaddafi and Arafat who were happy to throw in with the USSR.
> 
> Then Reagan and the CIA and the Mossad had the wacky idea that we needed to encourage religious fervor to beat the bad old commies before they taught girls how to read or something.
> 
> Even Hamas was encouraged by the Mossad to counter the influence of the largely secular Arafat.
> 
> How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
> 
> _"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
> 
> Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric._
Click to expand...

Joe...guy... When are you going to learn there is little difference between D's and Rs, especially with foreign affairs???...but you partisan types must keep the fairy tale alive.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Joe...guy... When are going to learn there is little difference between D's and Rs, especially with foreign affairs???...but you partisan types must keep the fairy tale alive.



Please go back to the Libertarian Kiddie Table, the grown-ups are talking about serious stuff here.


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
Click to expand...


You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.

You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.



> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"



Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.
> 
> You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.
Click to expand...


Your conclusion is entirely wrong-----my entire education in Christianity came from
Christians when I was a very young child.  My own family ---and relatives
never mentioned Christians------I was a teenager before I had any idea that adolf hitler was born a catholic.   I never attended ANY religious education other than Christian------well-----it was actually a bit of sunday school and
holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all I
did have.       What makes you think that reading the bible is a matter of hatred?
----way back when I was a kid I did not have big access to BOOKS------other
than rare trips to the little town public library and stuff here and there.    -----since
I lived in a very  Christian town there were little pocket sized copies of the NT  all over the place.   My neighbors were more worried about blacks---invading the
town public swimming pond than about me although they were also nurtured on
general Christian anti-Semitism also.      I am fascinated-----where do you see hatred?      I will give you some insight into  "hatred" -----if you wish to be honest
and candid------tell me what a  "Pharisee"  is.    What sort of role did they have in
"Judea/Israel"    of 2000 years ago and in the life of Jesus.     I have introduced you
to a very interesting -------food for thought topic.   ----the topic----"what does 'pharisee'  mean to you?"        It's kinda like asking a white southern Baptist cracker
"what does  'N^##er'  mean to you"?     ----for the record----I served in the US navy so I came to know lots of white southern Baptist crackers.


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.
> 
> You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is entirely wrong-----my entire education in Christianity came from
> Christians when I was a very young child.  My own family ---and relatives
> never mentioned Christians------I was a teenager before I had any idea that adolf hitler was born a catholic.   I never attended ANY religious education other than Christian------well-----it was actually a bit of sunday school and
> holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all I
> did have.       What makes you think that reading the bible is a matter of hatred?
> ----way back when I was a kid I did not have big access to BOOKS------other
> than rare trips to the little town public library and stuff here and there.    -----since
> I lived in a very  Christian town there were little pocket sized copies of the NT  all over the place.   My neighbors were more worried about blacks---invading the
> town public swimming pond than about me although they were also nurtured on
> general Christian anti-Semitism also.      I am fascinated-----where do you see hatred?      I will give you some insight into  "hatred" -----if you wish to be honest
> and candid------tell me what a  "Pharisee"  is.    What sort of role did they have in
> "Judea/Israel"    of 2000 years ago and in the life of Jesus.     I have introduced you
> to a very interesting -------food for thought topic.   ----the topic----"what does 'pharisee'  mean to you?"        It's kinda like asking a white southern Baptist cracker
> "what does  'N^##er'  mean to you"?     ----for the record----I served in the US navy so I came to know lots of white southern Baptist crackers.
Click to expand...



Your reference to Jews for one thing, spells out "hatred".  As for your education coming from Christians....there are many who call themselves Christian and know very little about Christianity....in other words, they don't practice true Christianity, they pick and choose specific scriptures in the Bible to back up some of their  deep seated racism/hatred.   Your use of demeaning words to refer to Jews implies some form of hatred toward them.  People don't generally use insulting names for people or groups of people unless they dislike them so much to the point that they get some satisfaction in using derogatory names for them....much like they have done for blacks, hispanics and others, like "white southern baptist crackers".

Your comment "it was actually a bit of sunday school and holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all Idid have."  doesn't sound like it was enough to give you a complete understanding of Christianity.  It's a life-long process, and one never quits learning.  The Bible is not an easy book to read and understand...so just reading the NT without using commentaries or some other form of guidance as to what certain phrases mean may cause the wrong interpretation.  Yet the message is simple....believe that Jesus is the Son of God, make Him Lord of your life, and you become a Believer.

I don't know what your fascination with the Pharisees is.....but to answer your question, the Pharisees were supposed to be the "godly" people during the time of Jesus, who thought they knew everything there was to know about God, more than they actually did.  They had added their own interpretations to God's Word until it had become unbearable for the Israelite to follow God's commands.  Jesus called them "vipers/snakes" because they were mostly interested in their own gain than they were in following God.  They were hypocrites, and we still have many today that act just like the Pharisees.

Here's what Jesus said of them....and as a Believer, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23 - King James Version


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, the Israelis should just kick the Arabs out of their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, a Jew is never happy unless he has someone he can exploit economically.  they want the Arabs to do all the jobs that "God's Chosen People" are too good to do.
Click to expand...


Your antisemitism is not an excuse for the Islamists.


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is  jibberish and you are very vulgar.    Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
> Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.
> 
> You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is entirely wrong-----my entire education in Christianity came from
> Christians when I was a very young child.  My own family ---and relatives
> never mentioned Christians------I was a teenager before I had any idea that adolf hitler was born a catholic.   I never attended ANY religious education other than Christian------well-----it was actually a bit of sunday school and
> holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all I
> did have.       What makes you think that reading the bible is a matter of hatred?
> ----way back when I was a kid I did not have big access to BOOKS------other
> than rare trips to the little town public library and stuff here and there.    -----since
> I lived in a very  Christian town there were little pocket sized copies of the NT  all over the place.   My neighbors were more worried about blacks---invading the
> town public swimming pond than about me although they were also nurtured on
> general Christian anti-Semitism also.      I am fascinated-----where do you see hatred?      I will give you some insight into  "hatred" -----if you wish to be honest
> and candid------tell me what a  "Pharisee"  is.    What sort of role did they have in
> "Judea/Israel"    of 2000 years ago and in the life of Jesus.     I have introduced you
> to a very interesting -------food for thought topic.   ----the topic----"what does 'pharisee'  mean to you?"        It's kinda like asking a white southern Baptist cracker
> "what does  'N^##er'  mean to you"?     ----for the record----I served in the US navy so I came to know lots of white southern Baptist crackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to Jews for one thing, spells out "hatred".  As for your education coming from Christians....there are many who call themselves Christian and know very little about Christianity....in other words, they don't practice true Christianity, they pick and choose specific scriptures in the Bible to back up some of their  deep seated racism/hatred.   Your use of demeaning words to refer to Jews implies some form of hatred toward them.  People don't generally use insulting names for people or groups of people unless they dislike them so much to the point that they get some satisfaction in using derogatory names for them....much like they have done for blacks, hispanics and others, like "white southern baptist crackers".
> 
> Your comment "it was actually a bit of sunday school and holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all Idid have."  doesn't sound like it was enough to give you a complete understanding of Christianity.  It's a life-long process, and one never quits learning.  The Bible is not an easy book to read and understand...so just reading the NT without using commentaries or some other form of guidance as to what certain phrases mean may cause the wrong interpretation.  Yet the message is simple....believe that Jesus is the Son of God, make Him Lord of your life, and you become a Believer.
> 
> I don't know what your fascination with the Pharisees is.....but to answer your question, the Pharisees were supposed to be the "godly" people during the time of Jesus, who thought they knew everything there was to know about God, more than they actually did.  They had added their own interpretations to God's Word until it had become unbearable for the Israelite to follow God's commands.  Jesus called them "vipers/snakes" because they were mostly interested in their own gain than they were in following God.  They were hypocrites, and we still have many today that act just like the Pharisees.
> 
> Here's what Jesus said of them....and as a Believer, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
> 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> 
> 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
> 
> 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23 - King James Version
Click to expand...


your told me what you "believe"    which is nothing more than the standard
Christian interpretation.      I am lucky----I had no real "formal education"  in
religion.     Although I did go to  "sunday school"   a bit with a Christian playmate.
and did grow up in a very Christian town.    My education understanding of
religion was not PREJUDICED by the formal stuff.    I learned by lots of reading 
As far as understanding that which is in the NT-----the person who cannot under-stand it is YOU.   Without knowing what was actually going on in  Judea/Israel
at that time-----and without knowing basic Judaism and having at least a minimal
grasp of the language jesus actually spoke-----you cannot know much at all.  
You know nothing about Pharisees.     or the idioms that the NT  attributes to
jesus         Tell me the truth-------is it your impression that the "money changers'
were Pharisees?      The  "high priest"    that seems to prosecute Jesus in the NT---
was named  CAIAPHAS      was he a Pharisee?     Did Pharisees advocate the
EXECUTION of women caught in adultery?    How about HEROD   ---was he a
"Pharisee?         You really are not likely to know------you might find out by googling


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Your antisemitism is not an excuse for the Islamists.



No, the excuse is the Jews stole their land and murdered their children.  

Holocaust 2: Electric Bugaloo.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your antisemitism is not an excuse for the Islamists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the excuse is the Jews stole their land and murdered their children.
> 
> Holocaust 2: Electric Bugaloo.
Click to expand...


The Jews didn't steal anything.  Why don't you learn something before you go around making yourself sound foolish?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The Jews didn't steal anything. Why don't you learn something before you go around making yourself sound foolish?



sorry, do you have another word for it. 

1900- No Jews in Palestine. They didn't own the land, the Arabs did.  

1948- Jews own half the land they've been systematically stealing. 

1967- they steal the rest of the land.  But now they are figuring out they can't hold it, so they are giving the shittier land back.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews didn't steal anything. Why don't you learn something before you go around making yourself sound foolish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, do you have another word for it.
> 
> 1900- No Jews in Palestine. They didn't own the land, the Arabs did.
> 
> 1948- Jews own half the land they've been systematically stealing.
> 
> 1967- they steal the rest of the land.  But now they are figuring out they can't hold it, so they are giving the shittier land back.
Click to expand...


They didn't steal the land.  The land was parceled by the people who were in control at the time and a portion was given to Israel.  They preemptively attacked (to prevent an attack on them) and won more land.  The spoils of war.  Still NOT stealing.  Palestinians continue to fight and bombard them, so they are pushing them out.  Can you blame them?  I'm sure if Mexico was lobbing bombs into the United States, you would demand the government take action.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> They didn't steal the land. The land was parceled by the people who were in control at the time and a portion was given to Israel. They preemptively attacked (to prevent an attack on them) and won more land. The spoils of war. Still NOT stealing. Palestinians continue to fight and bombard them, so they are pushing them out. Can you blame them? I'm sure if Mexico was lobbing bombs into the United States, you would demand the government take action.



The British had no business parceling out other people's land.  And even they realized it was a bad idea when the Zionists blew up the King David Hotel and killed a bunch of British Soldiers. 

King David Hotel bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here we are, 70 years later, trying to referee "Who does the Magic Man in the Sky Love the Very Bestest", and we are still taking a beating for it.  

When does the insanity stop?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't steal the land. The land was parceled by the people who were in control at the time and a portion was given to Israel. They preemptively attacked (to prevent an attack on them) and won more land. The spoils of war. Still NOT stealing. Palestinians continue to fight and bombard them, so they are pushing them out. Can you blame them? I'm sure if Mexico was lobbing bombs into the United States, you would demand the government take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British had no business parceling out other people's land.  And even they realized it was a bad idea when the Zionists blew up the King David Hotel and killed a bunch of British Soldiers.
> 
> King David Hotel bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here we are, 70 years later, trying to referee "Who does the Magic Man in the Sky Love the Very Bestest", and we are still taking a beating for it.
> 
> When does the insanity stop?
Click to expand...


They were in control of the land and they owned it, so they could do what they wanted.  THAT is how things were back then.  Your innocent little Muslims need to put their hatred aside and use some logic, although I don't see that happening.  They are like rabid animals.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> They were in control of the land and they owned it, so they could do what they wanted. THAT is how things were back then. Your innocent little Muslims need to put their hatred aside and use some logic, although I don't see that happening. They are like rabid animals.



Or they are wiser than you think.   I am betting a Muslim in 1099 after Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders could have just given up at that point.  BUt they didn't.  A hundred years later Saladin retook Jerusalem and by 1291, the Crusader States were no more. 

There's really no good reason for the Palestinians to give up.  The Zionists are eventually going to get tired of living next to people who want to kill them.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were in control of the land and they owned it, so they could do what they wanted. THAT is how things were back then. Your innocent little Muslims need to put their hatred aside and use some logic, although I don't see that happening. They are like rabid animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they are wiser than you think.   I am betting a Muslim in 1099 after Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders could have just given up at that point.  BUt they didn't.  A hundred years later Saladin retook Jerusalem and by 1291, the Crusader States were no more.
> 
> There's really no good reason for the Palestinians to give up.  The Zionists are eventually going to get tired of living next to people who want to kill them.
Click to expand...


That is not going to happen.  They are going to have to find a way to live together.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were in control of the land and they owned it, so they could do what they wanted. THAT is how things were back then. Your innocent little Muslims need to put their hatred aside and use some logic, although I don't see that happening. They are like rabid animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they are wiser than you think.   I am betting a Muslim in 1099 after Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders could have just given up at that point.  BUt they didn't.  A hundred years later Saladin retook Jerusalem and by 1291, the Crusader States were no more.
> 
> There's really no good reason for the Palestinians to give up.  The Zionists are eventually going to get tired of living next to people who want to kill them.
Click to expand...

Joey...the Jews were there before the Muzzies...so using your logic, the Muzzies must get out.  

Just as you need to get out of Chicago, since you are not native American.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> That is not going to happen. They are going to have to find a way to live together.



Why? Frankly, all the Arabs have to do is win one war. Then it's Holocaust 2: Electric Bugaloo. 

The Zionists have to win every war until the end of time.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not going to happen. They are going to have to find a way to live together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Frankly, all the Arabs have to do is win one war. Then it's Holocaust 2: Electric Bugaloo.
> 
> The Zionists have to win every war until the end of time.
Click to expand...


If that was going to happen, it would have happened already.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Joey...the Jews were there before the Muzzies...so using your logic, the Muzzies must get out.
> 
> Just as you need to get out of Chicago, since you are not native American.



Actually, I am part Native American. 

And - get this - the Jews from Europe have no relation to the Jews of Judea 2000 years ago other than sharing a religion.  They are entirely a EUROPEAN people, either coming from Russia (the Ashkenazim Jews) or Spain (the Shepherdic Jews.)


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> If that was going to happen, it would have happened already.



Again- took 200 years to drive out the Crusaders, but they did.  

Took 100 years to drive out the European Colonizers... but they did.  

Something we Americans don't get, having little perception of time...


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was going to happen, it would have happened already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- took 200 years to drive out the Crusaders, but they did.
> 
> Took 100 years to drive out the European Colonizers... but they did.
> 
> Something we Americans don't get, having little perception of time...
Click to expand...


They aren't going to drive the Israelis out.  Lol.  Come back down to earth.


----------



## ChrisL

According to historical documents, the area was nothing more than an uninhabitable harsh territory that was plagued with malaria and other diseases and where only the occasional nomads passed through and maybe set up temporary camps.  Israel is what it is today BECAUSE of the Israeli people.


----------



## ChrisL

Let's not forget the peace offerings that the Israelis have actually agreed to in the past that were just thrown back into their faces time and time again.


----------



## ChrisL

And one more thing, if Israel WANTED to, they could wipe "Palestine" off the face of the map. They haven't done that, so that says something.  Joe, you are nothing but an instigator of war and unrest, as well as a traitor to the American people.  At one time in history, a person like you would be deemed useless and hung.  

You are a person who has no loyalty, integrity or honor.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey...the Jews were there before the Muzzies...so using your logic, the Muzzies must get out.
> 
> Just as you need to get out of Chicago, since you are not native American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I am part Native American.
> 
> And - get this - the Jews from Europe have no relation to the Jews of Judea 2000 years ago other than sharing a religion.  They are entirely a EUROPEAN people, either coming from Russia (the Ashkenazim Jews) or Spain (the Shepherdic Jews.)
Click to expand...

Oh sure Joey...you are just a dumb polock from Chicago...now get out.  You are not native...so leave now.

And since Jews were there before Muzzies, Muzzies must go....right?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> They aren't going to drive the Israelis out. Lol. Come back down to earth.



israel will be gone in 100 years, and Jews will look back at it as an embarrassment, kind of the way Germans look at Nazism.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> And one more thing, if Israel WANTED to, they could wipe "Palestine" off the face of the map. They haven't done that, so that says something. Joe, you are nothing but an instigator of war and unrest, as well as a traitor to the American people. At one time in history, a person like you would be deemed useless and hung.
> 
> You are a person who has no loyalty, integrity or honor.



Uh, no, you see, Israel can't genocide the Palestinians without incurring the wrath of most of the civilized world.  

and sorry, snookums, I have a box of medals and a DD214 that says what my loyalty to America was. 

I just don't mistake America's interests for the interests of Zionist Shitstains. Stupid people like you who believe whatever shit comes out of the Jew-owned media are the ones who do that.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Oh sure Joey...you are just a dumb polock from Chicago...now get out. You are not native...so leave now.
> 
> And since Jews were there before Muzzies, Muzzies must go....right?



Um, no, there were JUDEANS there before the Muzzies. Not Jews.  Modern Judaism has nothing to do with what the Judeans believed in.  It's a relavitively modern invention. 

Probably the Muslims who live there now are more related to the ancient  Judeans than the Europeans are.  

Oh, also. Not Polish. We have lots of Poles in Chicago, but not me. But here's the funny thing. They don't squeal "Hitler did a nasty to us, so please tolerate our bad behavior."  and still think they can get away with THAT shit 70 years later.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> According to historical documents, the area was nothing more than an uninhabitable harsh territory that was plagued with malaria and other diseases and where only the occasional nomads passed through and maybe set up temporary camps. Israel is what it is today BECAUSE of the Israeli people.



You mean Charts written up by White people showing their cultural arrogance? 



ChrisL said:


> Let's not forget the peace offerings that the Israelis have actually agreed to in the past that were just thrown back into their faces time and time again.



Okay, I'm going to put this in terms you can understand. 

One day, I use a legal manuever to steal your house.  I take all your possessions, and when your (hypothetical) family members object to it, I use force to inflict bodily harm on them. Your family scatters up and down the block, being taken in by other neighbors.  Most of the Neighborhood now HATES me for doing it. 

So if I offer to let your family live in the unheated Garage, as long as you are willing to do menial work for me, while I continue to live in the nice house i threw you out of, am I really being a nice guy?  Would you really be grateful to me for letting you sleep in your own garage?  

No, I think your position would be 'You get the fuck out of my house and i won't kill you."  Which is pretty much the position the Palestinians are taking.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews didn't steal anything. Why don't you learn something before you go around making yourself sound foolish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, do you have another word for it.
> 
> 1900- No Jews in Palestine. They didn't own the land, the Arabs did.
> 
> 1948- Jews own half the land they've been systematically stealing.
> 
> 1967- they steal the rest of the land.  But now they are figuring out they can't hold it, so they are giving the shittier land back.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the fake history lesson.

Here's a real one:


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Thanks for the fake history lesson.
> 
> Here's a real one:



Isn't this the one from the registered hate group?


----------



## MaryL

Pogo said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
Click to expand...

Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the fake history lesson.
> 
> Here's a real one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this the one from the registered hate group?
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as a registered hate group, moron.

And don't be cutting out the vid cos you're afraid people will see the truth. Here ya go again, little lady....


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
Click to expand...


Of course it is.  That has absolutely zero to do with the problem of citing a story with no reference, which did not exist in the OP at the time.  Having seen my post, she came back and supplied one, as did others.

None of that has anything to do with a value judgment on the act itself.

This all happened weeks ago by now btw....


----------



## irosie91

MaryL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
Click to expand...


calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot 
as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have. 

That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.  Allah doesn't give a shit who she marries.  It's meaningless to anyone _outside that community._

And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
Click to expand...


I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED 
JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
Click to expand...



And where is _*any *_of that in the article?



Exactly.

You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.

They're not.  Why is that?

_Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
Click to expand...


Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT 
denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
Click to expand...



I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.
Click to expand...


the whole world is in the article?------Qadi simply means JUDGE in Arabic------
it what the judge is called in a shariah court--------why is this an issue for you?

that which people in turkey "believe"  is in the article?      A girl in Afghanistan was found guilty in a COURT OF LAW ----by a judge or a sexual indiscretion in accordance with  SHARIAH LAW and sentenced to be stoned---<<<<<that is the
article.      You call a court sentence an "honor killing"


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the whole world is in the article?------Qadi simply means JUDGE in Arabic------
> it what the judge is called in a shariah court--------why is this an issue for you?
> 
> that which people in turkey "believe"  is in the article?      A girl in Afghanistan was found guilty in a COURT OF LAW ----by a judge or a sexual indiscretion in accordance with  SHARIAH LAW and sentenced to be stoned---<<<<<that is the
> article.      You call a court sentence an "honor killing"
Click to expand...


For at least the 8th time now -- NONE of that is in the article.  You're just making it up and wasting my time.  Grow up.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the whole world is in the article?------Qadi simply means JUDGE in Arabic------
> it what the judge is called in a shariah court--------why is this an issue for you?
> 
> that which people in turkey "believe"  is in the article?      A girl in Afghanistan was found guilty in a COURT OF LAW ----by a judge or a sexual indiscretion in accordance with  SHARIAH LAW and sentenced to be stoned---<<<<<that is the
> article.      You call a court sentence an "honor killing"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For at least the 8th time now -- NONE of that is in the article.  You're just making it up and wasting my time.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


that "stuff"  is not in the article because anybody who knows anything knows
that stoning of people is a sentence pronounced in SHARIAH COURTS  
The afghani people are not dogs-------they are human beings----they have
shariah courts----and have had them for more than 1000 years you disgusting slob.
Afghanistan is not a wilderness of unwashed monkeys-------it has a very LONG
HISTORY------Kabul was -----in the past   A CULTURAL CENTER OF THE EAST
harboring    ------hindus and then Buddhists-----Jews,  Christians and sometime
later invaded by Moghuls.    There were giant universities there-------scholars
and all that stuff.       It was once an outpost of the PERSIAN EMPIRE too,    
You like to present it as a place of utterly ignorant unwashed illiterate
apes with  'primitive'  culture.     Ever meet an AFGHANI?     (Afghanistan also
had courts long before the moghuls got there and imposed islam)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Those with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam are attempting – and failing – to conflate cultural practices that existed long before the advent of Islam with Islam.


----------



## Pogo

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the whole world is in the article?------Qadi simply means JUDGE in Arabic------
> it what the judge is called in a shariah court--------why is this an issue for you?
> 
> that which people in turkey "believe"  is in the article?      A girl in Afghanistan was found guilty in a COURT OF LAW ----by a judge or a sexual indiscretion in accordance with  SHARIAH LAW and sentenced to be stoned---<<<<<that is the
> article.      You call a court sentence an "honor killing"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For at least the 8th time now -- NONE of that is in the article.  You're just making it up and wasting my time.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that "stuff"  is not in the article because anybody who knows anything knows
> that stoning of people is a sentence pronounced in SHARIAH COURTS
> The afghani people are not dogs-------they are human beings----they have
> shariah courts----and have had them for more than 1000 years you disgusting slob.
> Afghanistan is not a wilderness of unwashed monkeys-------it has a very LONG
> HISTORY------Kabul was -----in the past   A CULTURAL CENTER OF THE EAST
> harboring    ------hindus and then Buddhists-----Jews,  Christians and sometime
> later invaded by Moghuls.    There were giant universities there-------scholars
> and all that stuff.       It was once an outpost of the PERSIAN EMPIRE too,
> You like to present it as a place of utterly ignorant unwashed illiterate
> apes with  'primitive'  culture.     Ever meet an AFGHANI?     (Afghanistan also
> had courts long before the moghuls got there and imposed islam)
Click to expand...


So now you're falling back on the old "everybody knows" fallacy.  Finally admitting the article says no such thing, yet you know better, from your barcalounger in East Jipip.

You're a complete waste of time, bent on selling ignorance.  It baffles me who you think would be buying.  Good luck, it ain't gonna be me.


----------



## irosie91

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Those with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam are attempting – and failing – to conflate cultural practices that existed long before the advent of Islam with Islam.
Click to expand...


A shariah court adjudicates in accordance with ISLAM--------it IS islam----ie koranic law.      The  judge  (qadi)  in a shariah court is a recognized scholar of koranic law----that is how he gets to be the JUDGE  (qadi)     Long ago there were jews in Kabul and other parts of  Afghanistan-----in fact one of the most famous early TALMUDIC 
SCHOLARS    was from Afghanistan-------there were Yeshivas there----if he acted
as a JUDGE in a jewish court  "bet din"   he would adjudicate in accordance with
jewish law--------such courts DID exist in Afghanistan for many many centuries.  
An interesting factoid------the most prominent time of jewish scholarship in Afghanistan existed before the inception of islam-------and its most famous
scholar was one    RABBI ISHMAEL-------once islam came about----"Ishmael" 
as a given name------fell out of favor


----------



## irosie91

Pogo----did you ever meet an afghani?     I did ----long ago------about 45 years ago---
a doctor who attended medical school in Afghanistan-------you should really get over
your concept that the afghanis are a bunch of illiterate monkeys working on primitive
local stuff because they have no real history or culture or ANYTHING


----------



## irosie91

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Those with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam are attempting – and failing – to conflate cultural practices that existed long before the advent of Islam with Islam.
Click to expand...


no doubt that shariah law is very much influenced by practices that preceded islam--------and NOW lots of that stuff has been INCORPORATED into DIVINE
ETERNAL KORANIC LAW---------I wonder if you realize that your comment makes
no sense if you consider ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY.     According to classical Islamic
"thinking"     the KORAN and the law it describes was  CREATED before the creation of the universe ----by  ALLAH.        I have no expectation that you will be
able to comprehend the FACT that I have just handed you.        You consider my comment  "anti muslim"      NOPE----it is consistent with Islamic IDEOLOGY


----------



## Picaro

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not going to happen. They are going to have to find a way to live together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Frankly, all the Arabs have to do is win one war. Then it's Holocaust 2: Electric Bugaloo.
> 
> The Zionists have to win every war until the end of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that was going to happen, it would have happened already.
Click to expand...


JoeB is just another racist bigot and sociopath, so naturally he isn't interested in reality to any extent worth mentioning. He merely pretends to be 'all about humanity and peace n stuff', like most of the rest of the faux 'peace left', but they are phonies, and their main hobby is racism and bigotry. .Whitey, Jooos, and Xians are their current hate focuses; it's all about those for these psychos. The Pop sociology fads currently target those demographics, they sell the most books and speaking gigs for 'academics' and the political hacks who control Democratic Party machines in places like south Chicago, LA, and NYC, etc.


----------



## irosie91

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit-------you are now claiming that the   QADI is a piece of shit and does not
> adjudicate-----he just licks local ass.      You issue a GENERAL STATEMENT
> denigrating  muslim koranic scholar judges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up "qadi" --- YOU did.  It isn't in the article at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the whole world is in the article?------Qadi simply means JUDGE in Arabic------
> it what the judge is called in a shariah court--------why is this an issue for you?
> 
> that which people in turkey "believe"  is in the article?      A girl in Afghanistan was found guilty in a COURT OF LAW ----by a judge or a sexual indiscretion in accordance with  SHARIAH LAW and sentenced to be stoned---<<<<<that is the
> article.      You call a court sentence an "honor killing"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For at least the 8th time now -- NONE of that is in the article.  You're just making it up and wasting my time.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


some people simply do not know how shariah shit holes administer justice----and since you are aware of the fact you decided to take advantage of it and present
the idea that the stoning was something done by  "angry relatives" as  "honor violence"--------.  You attempt reveals the fact that you are a piece of shit liar.   I set
the record straight for you--------a fact which has clearly unsettled you


----------



## irosie91

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, how naive or gullible  can you get? Killing an unarmed person like that, is pure evil. Like Nazis shooting unarmed Jews  or Hutus hacking to death innocent Tutis, ENOUGH! No rationalizations, no excuses, ENOUGH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down all.     ISLAMIC law includes a very elaborate legal system which
> includes   COURTS AND TRIALS.   The young girl was brought to court----
> tried and sentenced to death by a  REAL JUDGE   (qadi)    The "Qadi"  is an
> expert in koranic law.      It is not an "honor'  killing-----it is a JUDICIAL EXECUTION-------just like an electric chair thing in the USA.    Pogo knows that-----(he cannot
> as utterly ignorant as he claims.    People in Iran are also given
> the benefit of trial and a judge-----same is true in Saudi arabia-----very elaborate
> court system----not all that much different from our own.     Pogo's claim that it is
> just an "honor killing"<<<<something everyone does------is bullshit.     It is ISLAM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The article supplied notes nothing of the kind.  It does however note that the victim's "crime" was eloping, which means taking her own course in her own marriage, which is a classic "honor killing" model.  It's a challenge to the psychotically insecure patriarchy that came up with this shit -- thousands of years ago, way before Islam or any other modern religion -- because a woman taking her own course in her own marriage is a challenge to that control issue they have.  That control issue --- the "honor" of the community's men displaying that the community's women are under their (the men's) control --- is a _social _construct, not a religious one.
> 
> And the incident -- and I've reminded you of this before -- was in *Afghanistan *... not Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I commented on KORANIC LAW------not  Iran vs Afghanistan-----The woman was CONVICTED BY A REAL COURT OF LAW COMPLETE WITH A LEARNED
> JUDGE------she was not murdered by an angry relative.     You are missing the
> entire point-----because YOU WANT TO.      A conviction by a real court of law is
> not called an  "HONOR KILLING"   regardless of the origins of those laws.   Your
> sophistry is truly   Idiotic      Iran functions on   SHARIAH LAW too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is _*any *_of that in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> You have any clue what I mean by the distinction between the local community and the religion?
> If this were a religious motive, then a Muslim in, say, Bangladesh or Indonesia or Tunisia should all be equally incensed that this girl eloped.
> 
> They're not.  Why is that?
> 
> _Because it's got nothing to do with them,_ that's why.  It's a *community *thing.  It's a social value.  A primitive and barbaric one, but that's where it lives.  The only thing that's been offended is the "honor" of the males IN THAT COMMUNITY who think they're supposed to have "control" over her.  That means nothing to a Muslim in Ankara or Casablanca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Those with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam are attempting – and failing – to conflate cultural practices that existed long before the advent of Islam with Islam.
Click to expand...


It was  a cultural practice in AFGHANISTAN -----before islam got to that land----that judges in courts sentenced women to being stoned to death for sexual indiscretion?  
You have a link that supports your contention?      Afghanistan was-----before islam got there-----a land of hindus and Buddhists with small Christian and jewish 
populations------it also harbored Zoroastrians          stoning link please.....


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> There's no such thing as a registered hate group, moron.
> 
> And don't be cutting out the vid cos you're afraid people will see the truth. Here ya go again, little lady....



Ooops, I just slicced out the Hate Video again... Wow. You see.  Cutting out Zionist Lies is easy. 

What kind of fucking moron lives next to people who want to kill them?  

The same kind of moron who thinks that there's a magic man in the sky who loves them the very best despite history showing the oppossite.


----------



## JoeB131

Picaro said:


> JoeB is just another racist bigot and sociopath, so naturally he isn't interested in reality to any extent worth mentioning. He merely pretends to be 'all about humanity and peace n stuff', like most of the rest of the faux 'peace left', but they are phonies, and their main hobby is racism and bigotry. .Whitey, Jooos, and Xians are their current hate focuses; it's all about those for these psychos. The Pop sociology fads currently target those demographics, they sell the most books and speaking gigs for 'academics' and the political hacks who control Democratic Party machines in places like south Chicago, LA, and NYC, etc.



Guy, I think you are confused.  I could give a two shits about "peace and humanity". I'm a realist. 

I just don't think we need to keep pissing away lives and treasure because the Zionists think their Magic Sky Pixie loves them the very best, or the Christians think we need to prop them up so Jesus can come back.  Because that's kind of stupid. 

You show me a war that is in America's interest, I will support it.  I served in the US Army for 11 years, and not all of them were good ones. 

Throwing away American lives so the Zionists can live their religious fantasies or because you want to drive your big old SUV that gets 2 miles to the gallon isn't a good reason.


----------



## Mertex

irosie91 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "reality" is that you know nothing and are very proud to display it.  I don't waste my time trying to educate someone who enjoys their ignorant state.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.
> 
> You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is entirely wrong-----my entire education in Christianity came from
> Christians when I was a very young child.  My own family ---and relatives
> never mentioned Christians------I was a teenager before I had any idea that adolf hitler was born a catholic.   I never attended ANY religious education other than Christian------well-----it was actually a bit of sunday school and
> holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all I
> did have.       What makes you think that reading the bible is a matter of hatred?
> ----way back when I was a kid I did not have big access to BOOKS------other
> than rare trips to the little town public library and stuff here and there.    -----since
> I lived in a very  Christian town there were little pocket sized copies of the NT  all over the place.   My neighbors were more worried about blacks---invading the
> town public swimming pond than about me although they were also nurtured on
> general Christian anti-Semitism also.      I am fascinated-----where do you see hatred?      I will give you some insight into  "hatred" -----if you wish to be honest
> and candid------tell me what a  "Pharisee"  is.    What sort of role did they have in
> "Judea/Israel"    of 2000 years ago and in the life of Jesus.     I have introduced you
> to a very interesting -------food for thought topic.   ----the topic----"what does 'pharisee'  mean to you?"        It's kinda like asking a white southern Baptist cracker
> "what does  'N^##er'  mean to you"?     ----for the record----I served in the US navy so I came to know lots of white southern Baptist crackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to Jews for one thing, spells out "hatred".  As for your education coming from Christians....there are many who call themselves Christian and know very little about Christianity....in other words, they don't practice true Christianity, they pick and choose specific scriptures in the Bible to back up some of their  deep seated racism/hatred.   Your use of demeaning words to refer to Jews implies some form of hatred toward them.  People don't generally use insulting names for people or groups of people unless they dislike them so much to the point that they get some satisfaction in using derogatory names for them....much like they have done for blacks, hispanics and others, like "white southern baptist crackers".
> 
> Your comment "it was actually a bit of sunday school and holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all Idid have."  doesn't sound like it was enough to give you a complete understanding of Christianity.  It's a life-long process, and one never quits learning.  The Bible is not an easy book to read and understand...so just reading the NT without using commentaries or some other form of guidance as to what certain phrases mean may cause the wrong interpretation.  Yet the message is simple....believe that Jesus is the Son of God, make Him Lord of your life, and you become a Believer.
> 
> I don't know what your fascination with the Pharisees is.....but to answer your question, the Pharisees were supposed to be the "godly" people during the time of Jesus, who thought they knew everything there was to know about God, more than they actually did.  They had added their own interpretations to God's Word until it had become unbearable for the Israelite to follow God's commands.  Jesus called them "vipers/snakes" because they were mostly interested in their own gain than they were in following God.  They were hypocrites, and we still have many today that act just like the Pharisees.
> 
> Here's what Jesus said of them....and as a Believer, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
> 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> 
> 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
> 
> 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23 - King James Version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your told me what you "believe"    which is nothing more than the standard
> Christian interpretation.      I am lucky----I had no real "formal education"  in
> religion.     Although I did go to  "sunday school"   a bit with a Christian playmate.
Click to expand...

You are one of many that have already made up your mind that you won't believe.  Your little bit of education when you were young is not enough for you to claim you fully understand, but you have already made up your mind not to believe because believing is much more difficult and would require more from you than you are willing to give.


> and did grow up in a very Christian town.


 I'm sorry, but you don't pick up Christianity by osmosis.....


> My education understanding of
> religion was not PREJUDICED by the formal stuff.    I learned by lots of reading


In other words, you didn't get it from people who actually knew what they were talking about.



> As far as understanding that which is in the NT-----the person who cannot under-stand it is YOU.   Without knowing what was actually going on in  Judea/Israel
> at that time-----and without knowing basic Judaism and having at least a minimal
> grasp of the language jesus actually spoke-----you cannot know much at all.


And you are presuming that I don't?  You base a lot of your "knowledge" on what you think is going on rather than what is actually going on.


> You know nothing about Pharisees.
> or the idioms that the NT  attributes to
> jesus


I know what Jesus said about the Pharisees, but you base your information on some council that wasn't even around at the time of Jesus?  Seems like you have it backasswards...you're the one that has taken what someone has written about it and accepted it as fact.



> Tell me the truth-------is it your impression that the "money changers'
> were Pharisees?



Why is it important to you to know what I think of the money-changers?  What is it you think you know about the Pharisees that you think clouds my view of them?



> The  "high priest"    that seems to prosecute Jesus in the NT---
> was named  CAIAPHAS      was he a Pharisee?


No, he was a Saducee.



> Did Pharisees advocate the
> EXECUTION of women caught in adultery?


The Pharisees stoned Stephen to death, and they were the ones that guarded the oral Jewish traditions, so yes, they would have advocated the execution of women caught in adultery.....however, in order to have her executed lawfully....they would have had to bring the man also.

10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife,* the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. *



> How about HEROD   ---was he a
> "Pharisee?         You really are not likely to know------you might find out by googling



Did you google it?  

You really are showing your ignorance asking such an ignorant question.  Herod was not one that believed in God, so why would you even suggest he might be a Pharisee?


----------



## irosie91

Mertex said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you seem unable to face the simple fact that Luke never met Jesus----- and had he--
> he would not be able to understand a single word Jesus said----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  First of all, I have never even mentioned Luke other than to say that the writers of the NT lived and were around during the time of Jesus.
> 
> You really have no proof that Luke never met Jesus.  Luke may not have been one of the original 12 disciples, but his writings are based on reliable sources (mostly Paul).  He was a close companion of Paul (Saul) who was actually an enemy of Jesus until his encounter with Jesus on the way to Damascus.   Jesus sent out 72 disciples to preach his word.....and Luke could very well have been among them.   And the point I was making was that they all lived during the time of Jesus unlike your source which didn't come about until 325 AD, so quit making up shit and then acting as if I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your POV----you carry the family legacy of the shit who lived off LIBELS----like the
> blood in matzoh church crap,  the excuse your kith and kin used to slaughter
> hundreds of thousands.     You cannot address the FACT that the shit of your
> church STILL INSIST  that jews could not execute people -----but then throw crap like "stone the adultress" into your  "bible"        You are really dim----the key to your
> stupidity is right there on the pages of the NT ------read it sometime.    It is a very interesting book if you understand what you are actually reading     BTW----if jews could stone people------HOW COME SANHEDRIN REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO STONE JESUS------SINCE DA JOOOOS HATED HIM SO MUCH----
> REMEMBER-----YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE PHARISEES OF THE SANDHEDRIN-----THE WICKED CAIAPHAS------HATED JESUS-----REMEMBER
> CAIAPHAS THE PHARISEE???      NOW SAY IT THREE TIMES----
> "CAIAPHAS, THE WICKED MONEY CHANGER PHARISEE WHO HATED
> JESUS WANTED TO STONE JESUS BUT THEN DECIDED TO FORCE NOBLE
> PONTIUS PILATE TO DO THE DIRTY DEED-----POOR INNOCENT PILATE"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding is blinded by your hatred for Christians and you have bought into the maniacal writings of others full of hate like you.  You have proven that you are no authority on the subject of Christianity, so quit pretending that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is entirely wrong-----my entire education in Christianity came from
> Christians when I was a very young child.  My own family ---and relatives
> never mentioned Christians------I was a teenager before I had any idea that adolf hitler was born a catholic.   I never attended ANY religious education other than Christian------well-----it was actually a bit of sunday school and
> holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all I
> did have.       What makes you think that reading the bible is a matter of hatred?
> ----way back when I was a kid I did not have big access to BOOKS------other
> than rare trips to the little town public library and stuff here and there.    -----since
> I lived in a very  Christian town there were little pocket sized copies of the NT  all over the place.   My neighbors were more worried about blacks---invading the
> town public swimming pond than about me although they were also nurtured on
> general Christian anti-Semitism also.      I am fascinated-----where do you see hatred?      I will give you some insight into  "hatred" -----if you wish to be honest
> and candid------tell me what a  "Pharisee"  is.    What sort of role did they have in
> "Judea/Israel"    of 2000 years ago and in the life of Jesus.     I have introduced you
> to a very interesting -------food for thought topic.   ----the topic----"what does 'pharisee'  mean to you?"        It's kinda like asking a white southern Baptist cracker
> "what does  'N^##er'  mean to you"?     ----for the record----I served in the US navy so I came to know lots of white southern Baptist crackers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to Jews for one thing, spells out "hatred".  As for your education coming from Christians....there are many who call themselves Christian and know very little about Christianity....in other words, they don't practice true Christianity, they pick and choose specific scriptures in the Bible to back up some of their  deep seated racism/hatred.   Your use of demeaning words to refer to Jews implies some form of hatred toward them.  People don't generally use insulting names for people or groups of people unless they dislike them so much to the point that they get some satisfaction in using derogatory names for them....much like they have done for blacks, hispanics and others, like "white southern baptist crackers".
> 
> Your comment "it was actually a bit of sunday school and holidays with Christians------so it was not really an "education" ------but it was all Idid have."  doesn't sound like it was enough to give you a complete understanding of Christianity.  It's a life-long process, and one never quits learning.  The Bible is not an easy book to read and understand...so just reading the NT without using commentaries or some other form of guidance as to what certain phrases mean may cause the wrong interpretation.  Yet the message is simple....believe that Jesus is the Son of God, make Him Lord of your life, and you become a Believer.
> 
> I don't know what your fascination with the Pharisees is.....but to answer your question, the Pharisees were supposed to be the "godly" people during the time of Jesus, who thought they knew everything there was to know about God, more than they actually did.  They had added their own interpretations to God's Word until it had become unbearable for the Israelite to follow God's commands.  Jesus called them "vipers/snakes" because they were mostly interested in their own gain than they were in following God.  They were hypocrites, and we still have many today that act just like the Pharisees.
> 
> Here's what Jesus said of them....and as a Believer, I have no reason to doubt what he said.
> 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> 
> 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
> 
> 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23 - King James Version
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your told me what you "believe"    which is nothing more than the standard
> Christian interpretation.      I am lucky----I had no real "formal education"  in
> religion.     Although I did go to  "sunday school"   a bit with a Christian playmate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one of many that have already made up your mind that you won't believe.  Your little bit of education when you were young is not enough for you to claim you fully understand, but you have already made up your mind not to believe because believing is much more difficult and would require more from you than you are willing to give.
> 
> 
> 
> and did grow up in a very Christian town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't pick up Christianity by osmosis.....
> 
> 
> 
> My education understanding of
> religion was not PREJUDICED by the formal stuff.    I learned by lots of reading
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you didn't get it from people who actually knew what they were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as understanding that which is in the NT-----the person who cannot under-stand it is YOU.   Without knowing what was actually going on in  Judea/Israel
> at that time-----and without knowing basic Judaism and having at least a minimal
> grasp of the language jesus actually spoke-----you cannot know much at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are presuming that I don't?  You base a lot of your "knowledge" on what you think is going on rather than what is actually going on.
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about Pharisees.
> or the idioms that the NT  attributes to
> jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what Jesus said about the Pharisees, but you base your information on some council that wasn't even around at the time of Jesus?  Seems like you have it backasswards...you're the one that has taken what someone has written about it and accepted it as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me the truth-------is it your impression that the "money changers'
> were Pharisees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it important to you to know what I think of the money-changers?  What is it you think you know about the Pharisees that you think clouds my view of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  "high priest"    that seems to prosecute Jesus in the NT---
> was named  CAIAPHAS      was he a Pharisee?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he was a Saducee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Pharisees advocate the
> EXECUTION of women caught in adultery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Pharisees stoned Stephen to death, and they were the ones that guarded the oral Jewish traditions, so yes, they would have advocated the execution of women caught in adultery.....however, in order to have her executed lawfully....they would have had to bring the man also.
> 
> 10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife,* the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about HEROD   ---was he a
> "Pharisee?         You really are not likely to know------you might find out by googling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you google it?
> 
> You really are showing your ignorance asking such an ignorant question.  Herod was not one that believed in God, so why would you even suggest he might be a Pharisee?
Click to expand...


your answers indicate that you remain ignorant of the life and times of the person JESUS----you choose to believe the details provided in a book compiled 300 years after he died---and based on writings of people who never met him or did not understand the language he spoke and under the aegis of people who had very good reason to HATE PHARISEES.    The interesting aspect of your "belief"   ---
the specific questions I asked you are based on misapprehensions of many  of
those you would call  "EDUCATED" in the bible people.    That includes one of
my colleagues-----a former priest who dropped out and went to medical school---
and -----a STUDENT priest I encountered in my college years.     You do manage
to quote in a very literal way the details of the charge of adultery noted in torah law-----that is easy-----but you have no idea as to how the matter was handled---AT THE TIME.    -----I will help you a little----"the Pharisees"  did not adjudicate  THE LAW and had no power at all to sentence a person to death
at that time.   
The stoning of James   (assuming that happened)  could be explained if one wishes to attribute his death to a kind of Lynch mob.    There is actually no reason to imagine that  HEROD did not believe in G-d other than heresay put out
by people who never met him under the aegis of romans who had reason to reject
him.   Herod was an EDOMITE-----Edomites are no longer extant-----because
they generally assimilated into the Jewish population-----the legend considered
true in roman/jewish circles was that HIS MOTHER    was a very pious
jewish (by conversion)  lady.   Since lots of jews considered him an INVALID king--and a shill for the romans-----there was some animosity against him ----historically--
for jews.    Christians have an entirely unconfirmed legend that he killed
babies.    Romans did----Greeks  (the Assyrian greeks)  did---but there is absolutely no history suggesting that Herod did.   Of course there is no ROMAN history
that they did any murder at all------Pilate's crucifixtion of 20,000 jews was FORCED ON HIM BY PHARISEES     ---or something like that.  HE IS  A SAINT!!!!!    PS---it is because of the ideology of the PHARISEES   that Israel has no capital punishment today----
Pharisees were followers of HILLEL whose policy was to FIND ANY POSSIBLE 
REASON TO AVOID EXECUTION------see?  your conclusions are erroneous. 
You learned your stuff in sunday school.     You have an explanation for why 
---"THE PHARISEES"  did not sentence Jesus to death since you seem to
believe that they had the power to do so?    Afterall----Jesus himself named
them the  "keepers of the law"----as you noted.


----------



## Hossfly

Pogo said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
Click to expand...

I ran across this thread and I remember that the stoning of Rokhsahana caused a thread on the Middle East Forum. Heres an article about it.

*Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'*

*A young Afghan woman was stoned to death after being accused of adultery, officials said Tuesday, a medieval punishment apparently recorded in a video that harks back to the dark days of Taliban rule.

The 30-second clip run in Afghan media shows a woman in a hole in the ground as turbaned men gather around and hurl stones at her with chilling nonchalance.

The woman, named by officials as Rokhsahana and aged between 19 and 21, is heard repeating the shahada, or Muslim profession of faith, her voice growing increasingly high-pitched as stones strike her with sickening thuds.

Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'*


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hossfly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ran across this thread and I remember that the stoning of Rokhsahana caused a thread on the Middle East Forum. Heres an article about it.
> 
> *Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'*
> 
> *A young Afghan woman was stoned to death after being accused of adultery, officials said Tuesday, a medieval punishment apparently recorded in a video that harks back to the dark days of Taliban rule.*
> 
> *The 30-second clip run in Afghan media shows a woman in a hole in the ground as turbaned men gather around and hurl stones at her with chilling nonchalance.*
> 
> *The woman, named by officials as Rokhsahana and aged between 19 and 21, is heard repeating the shahada, or Muslim profession of faith, her voice growing increasingly high-pitched as stones strike her with sickening thuds.*
> 
> *Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'*
Click to expand...

And from the bathroom thread, Afghanistan is condemning the American States that prevent men from going into the bathroom with little girls.

And that was a pro-pervert post too.


----------



## ChrisL

This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.



Dear ChrisL
Sexism and bullying/abuse of women runs deeper than religion.
When people are conditioned to respond that way, it is
spiritual
social
environmental
psychological
cultural
personal.

Any number of these layers can be EXPRESSED through religion,
but it is embedded in someone's psyche.

The therapies that have proven successful in undoing these layers of conditioning
and bringing about HEALING and TRANSFORMATION
are based on FORGIVENESS and LETTING GO
of past resentment and conditioning. It's a lot harder to change, and it takes a lot of
compassion and being in a SAFE healing environment before such deep changes
can take place.  It's a lot easier to project blame pain and rage as a barrier to change,
and that's a lot of the reason this abuse and persecution continues because it is easier
to project the need for "change and control outside ourselves" (ie onto an easier target
by bullying a weaker person) than trying to change the root patterns of behavior.

I have never seen one case of someone healing and changing by being
judged, rejected and punished and blamed which normally brings about
MORE defensiveness, denial and rebellion. This is harder for MEN to change in a society that expects men to be unchanging, and paints them as weak if they back down after they've publicly taken a stance. So we set ourselves up to fail, and "make it worse" by blaming and attacking, which makes men like these hold even stronger to their ways as a defense.

ChrisL have you ever met men who would AGREE to change after being
blamed and attacked for their religious or political beliefs? No, of course not!
It has the OPPOSITE effect of making them cling MORE to PROVE their ways are right.
So this is self-defeating.

The most I've seen is the "drill sergeant" approach to yelling down
kids and breaking them down like wild mustangs until they were crying and begging like babies
and then they were open to listening, obeying and complying with authority.

But that takes addressing each person INDIVIDUALLY.
It does NOT work to try to yell down an entire group,
such as across the internet, and think that's going to change anything.

The only chance we have is to address people one on one to have an effect on each other.

And ChrisL if you don't take to changing or correcting anything
when someone is in your face, blaming the world's problems on YOU and YOUR BELIEFS
what makes you think that is going to influence change
for you or me to do that?
To point to something and say that is the fault of X Y Z group collectively, but not me.

Again the only effective change I've seen is when people point out
MUTUAL points of correction, things we can change TOGETHER.

So how can we do that here?
How can we address this problem of judging/punishing someone without due process?
Do you see my point, we cannot go around condemning people based on our judgment,
without going through the process of addressing each person INDIVIDUALLY with
the exact charges or wrongs that particular person is accused of doing, and giving
them a chance to answer for themselves. If we go ahead and assume "all people of
that religious group are guilty" and therefore anyone WE associate with that group is at fault,
that's a lesser version of stoning someone without first proving what they were guilty
of and giving them a chance to correct the problem first.

So if everyone does this, in one form or degree or another,
aren't we all guilty of contributing to "casting stones" at each other without due process?


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.



No, it's cultural, and dates to waaaay before the religions.
And we already did this.  Right here in this same thread IINM.


----------



## Hossfly

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's cultural, and dates to waaaay before the religions.
> And we already did this.  Right here in this same thread IINM.
Click to expand...

But WWJD?


----------



## MaryL

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


Islam does things like this.  They oppose free thought, stone apostates, critics  AND western freethinkers to death. And some of you had issues with Western Christianity , they are wimps compared to ISALM.


----------



## Pogo

Oboy!!  We're gonna replay this thread from the beginning again?  That's like, so cool.  Saves time, just cut 'n' paste.

Here's my old chestnut from 554 posts ago:

>> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so _the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue._ However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. << -- Origins of Honor Killing​


----------



## The Great Goose

So its racial


----------



## Pogo

The Great Goose said:


> So its racial



No, it's cultural.  And very very _very_ old.  From long before there was a Mohammed or a Jesus or a Moses or a Buddha.
One could (and one has) cite(d) a slew of references to it in the Holey Babble as well but that doesn't make it a Judeo-Christian practice either.  It was already an old practice before then.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hossfly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's cultural, and dates to waaaay before the religions.
> And we already did this.  Right here in this same thread IINM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But WWJD?
Click to expand...


Hossfly RE: doing what Jesus what do

the approaches that have worked to heal entire villages in Africa destroyed by genocidal tribal wars against each other
used reconciliation and restorative justice principles.
this allowed the neighbors to both acknowledge the wrongs that were committed
but also to forgive heal and rebuild together, as their relations were more important to their success and survival.

special thanks to drifter for the posts referencing
the "reconciliation villages" in Africa:
Reconciliation Village Hosts Victims, Perpetrators of Rwandan Genocide


----------



## emilynghiem

The Great Goose said:


> So its racial



Dear The Great Goose
I have found sexism in all races, but yes some will say it is worse
in the Latino and African cultures; because where such groups are already oppressed
and battling for power, it is even more pronounced when the abuse and infighting is at the cost of women.

If you look at the trafficking that is ravaging Africa and South/Central/Latin America
how much of that is enabled because of men in these cultures conditioned to devalue women already?

If you want to throw in Asian culture:
I've seen people overlook Asian slavery as part of the economic reality we live in today while condemning Black slavery,
because of the ethnic stereotype that it is seen as a positive trait for Asians to work harder with little or no pay
but seen as insulting if Blacks are expected to work as slaves.


----------



## The Great Goose

emilynghiem said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its racial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear The Great Goose
> I have found sexism in all races, but yes some will say it is worse
> in the Latino and African cultures; because where such groups are already oppressed
> and battling for power, it is even more pronounced when the abuse and infighting is at the cost of women.
> 
> If you look at the trafficking that is ravaging Africa and South/Central/Latin America
> how much of that is enabled because of men in these cultures conditioned to devalue women already?
> 
> If you want to throw in Asian culture:
> I've seen people overlook Asian slavery as part of the economic reality we live in today while condemning Black slavery,
> because of the ethnic stereotype that it is seen as a positive trait for Asians to work harder with little or no pay
> but seen as insulting if Blacks are expected to work as slaves.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should learn from these races.


----------



## Yarddog

Pogo said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God. This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of unfair to post an alleged story and picture that has no link at all.  How do we know you didn't just make this up?
> 
> Anyway from the little there is here I don't see any indication that this was a religious act.  It looks more like an "honor killing" which is a socio-cultural custom.  But most of the OP is rambling on and on about Jesus, and there's little to nothing about this event.  If it even IS an event.
Click to expand...

Your right, all I see here is future NYC cab drivers


----------



## ChrisL

It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."



No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.  
As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion.  I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.

Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
Now think of something that happened last fall.

..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358.  "Way older" .


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
> As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion.  I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.
> 
> Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
> Now think of something that happened last fall.
> 
> ..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358.  "Way older" .
Click to expand...


I disagree with you.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
> As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion.  I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.
> 
> Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
> Now think of something that happened last fall.
> 
> ..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358.  "Way older" .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with you.
Click to expand...


It's already established history.


----------



## Weatherman2020

ChrisL said:


> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.


Because we all know Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot etc always treated everyone with dignity.

You have to go to college to learn to be that stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

Weatherman2020 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This stuff is disgusting and due to religious beliefs.  Good thing we keep a check on them here in the States.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we all know Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot etc always treated everyone with dignity.
> 
> You have to go to college to learn to be that stupid.
Click to expand...


Most of the strife I see in the world today is due to religious beliefs.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The picture could have been taken 2,000 years ago and it would look the same. This type thing is in the bible as well. 

Some people just can't adjust to change and modern times. The Amish simply don't own televisions or radios, other people are far more insecure and by killing other people it legitimizes their own ridiculous beliefs. It is a type of substantiation that you are right and everyone that believes otherwise is wrong. 

And it should be opposed on all fronts.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's due to differences in religious beliefs and because some think that certain acts are "sins" in the eyes of their "gods."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually it's due to primitive patriarchy.
> As I keep saying, it's way older than any religion.  I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that concept.
> 
> Think of something that happened fifteen minutes ago.
> Now think of something that happened last fall.
> 
> ..... And now think of something that happened in the year 358.  "Way older" .
Click to expand...



 This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam.  You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.

  This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

MaryL said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> Islam does things like this.  They oppose free thought, stone apostates, critics  AND western freethinkers to death. And some of you had issues with Western Christianity , they are wimps compared to ISALM.
Click to expand...



 Yep.

 I must say, however, that if it is free thinkers who are opposed, these lock-step leftists who feel obligated to defend Islam like they do are certainly off the hook.

 They are so absolutely terrified of expressing a thought that does not conform with the latest politically correct fashion as to be every bit as rigid and conformist as the Islamists they defend.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.



Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.

When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.

But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?


From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:

In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<

(case history 2):

>> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".

*Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<

--- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​



Dogmaphobe said:


> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.



The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
Click to expand...



I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.

You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.

I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.

The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.

.....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
Click to expand...


Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.

This is about simple logic.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
Click to expand...



 Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.

This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
Click to expand...


Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.





Dogmaphobe said:


> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.



Did it now/Am I now.

If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21

"Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24

"And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20

"You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.

Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.

I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
Click to expand...


So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
Click to expand...


There have been many (and still are) where religious practices were not a part of life and women were not "second class" citizens.  

6 Modern Societies Where Women Literally Rule


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
Click to expand...



 Well, you know, Pogo -- we will just have to agree to disagree.

 I support the liberal notion that women are the complete equal of men.  You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a religio-political ideology where they are second-class citizens by very structure of law.  I believe in the liberal notion that gay people should be able to live their lives as they choose free from harassment. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend the religio-political ideology that persecutes them relentlessly. I support the liberal notion that religion and politics should be separate. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend this totalitarian belief system that does not distinguish between the two.  I support the liberal notions of freedom of speech, freedom of though, and freedom of association. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a totalitarian ideology that allows for none.

Now, once again, I realize you only say things because you represent the far left hive mind and the little peeps in your classes give you props for defending Islam, but believe me -- you are not representing a liberal point of view here by conforming with such lock-step determination.

You are only looking like a fundamentalist just as unquestioning as the worst Islamist variety.


----------



## ChrisL

In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.  

Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed?  Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws.  They have been "moderated."  Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate.  If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

ChrisL said:


> In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.
> 
> Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed?  Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws.  They have been "moderated."  Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate.  If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.




 We both know that all these defenses of Islam are not based upon reason.

They are just the ravings of those with cases of arrested development forever stuck in that acting-out stage of their life where they identify with anything that seeks to destroy.

 It's like one giant oppositional defiant disorder in action.


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know, Pogo -- we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I support the liberal notion that women are the complete equal of men.  You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a religio-political ideology where they are second-class citizens by very structure of law.  I believe in the liberal notion that gay people should be able to live their lives as they choose free from harassment. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend the religio-political ideology that persecutes them relentlessly. I support the liberal notion that religion and politics should be separate. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend this totalitarian belief system that does not distinguish between the two.  I support the liberal notions of freedom of speech, freedom of though, and freedom of association. You obviously do not, otherwise you would not defend a totalitarian ideology that allows for none.
> 
> Now, once again, I realize you only say things because you represent the far left hive mind and the little peeps in your classes give you props for defending Islam, but believe me -- you are not representing a liberal point of view here by conforming with such lock-step determination.
> 
> You are only looking like a fundamentalist just as unquestioning as the worst Islamist variety.
Click to expand...



You obviously know nothing about Pogo.


----------



## ChrisL

Dogmaphobe said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.
> 
> Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed?  Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws.  They have been "moderated."  Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate.  If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that all these defenses of Islam are not based upon reason.
> 
> They are just the ravings of those with cases of arrested development forever stuck in that acting-out stage of their life where they identify with anything that seeks to destroy.
> 
> It's like one giant oppositional defiant disorder in action.
Click to expand...


I pretty much feel the same about all religious beliefs (or at least the main Abrahamic religions that I know something about).


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.
Click to expand...


It's a time marker.  If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years.  And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use _then_.  Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up.  There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on.  None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a *new* thing -- it's _already _a practice.

And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older.  And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have indulged in no appeal to emotion, son.
> 
> You were too busy indulging in your false equivalencies and looking up other people's opinions to  notice, however.
> 
> I realize that you are ignorant as to the structural and doctrinal differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, here, and I realize you are motivated by a desire to sound exactly like all your little peeps but just because you are ignorant, that does not mean they are all the same.
> 
> The scope, prevalence and severity of the misogyny inherent and practiced in the three religions is so different that a person would have to be monumentally ignorant to defend Islam as being little different from the other two.
> 
> .....and yes, it IS about Islam here, oh politically correct child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a time marker.  If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years.  And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use _then_.  Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up.  There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on.  None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a *new* thing -- it's _already _a practice.
> 
> And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older.  And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that is pointless.  The people who practice these forms of punishment are doing so in the name of their religious beliefs.  Nothing else really matters.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> Well, you know, Pogo -- we will just have to agree to disagree.



That's fine; I can lead you to the water but I can't do your thinking for you if you're already set on going  and believe you can rearrange linear time however you want.  The simple fact is these are ancient _cultural_ practices, with no religious function, and I've documented that all over this thread.  If you choose to ignore known anthropological history --- that's your self-delusion.




Dogmaphobe said:


> I support the liberal notion that women are the complete equal of men. You obviously do not,



Fuck you. Don't you_ EVER_ put words in my mouth.  Get your own.

And grow the fuck up.  This childish strawmanning is the maturity level of a 9-year-old.  I know the lazy way to approach this is to accept simplistic Association Fallacies and then ululate when you're presented with the deeper causes that might require you to actually think or, perish the thought, challenge your own preconceptions, but the facts are the facts.

When the known facts change, I change my mind.  What do YOU do, sir?

Exactly.  Wimp.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It isn't.  Read the title --- it's about HBV.  "Islam" was brought in as an irrelevant red herring.  Were we to choose a different red herring according to the Two Minutes Hate of a different day, we could invoke Hinduism or Sikhism.  It would still be the same fallacy as describing a Klan lynching as a "Christian" practice.
> 
> This is about simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a time marker.  If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years.  And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use _then_.  Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up.  There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on.  None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a *new* thing -- it's _already _a practice.
> 
> And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older.  And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is pointless.  The people who practice these forms of punishment are doing so in the name of their religious beliefs.  Nothing else really matters.
Click to expand...


Again, so were the Ku Klux Klan lynching black people; so were the various abortion bombers like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder.  Exact same thing.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> In countries today where women are tortured and killed by methods such as "stoning," it can be directly traced to patriarchal religious beliefs that women are to "obey" and "serve" men, so when these women try to live their lives the way they want instead of how their "religious culture" dictates, they are put to death using methods according to the religious beliefs of that culture.
> 
> Do you think Christianity would be any different if it was allowed?  Because most Christians live in a secular society or culture, they must also abide by man (or woman) made laws.  They have been "moderated."  Also, there is the New Testament which helps to moderate.  If there was no New Testament, these crazy religious folks would be still living by the laws of the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know that all these defenses of Islam are not based upon reason.
> 
> They are just the ravings of those with cases of arrested development forever stuck in that acting-out stage of their life where they identify with anything that seeks to destroy.
> 
> It's like one giant oppositional defiant disorder in action.
Click to expand...


This must be too lofty a concept for your limited brain to grasp but none of this is a "defense of Islam",  or a "defense of Hinduism" or a "defense of Sikhism" or a "defense of Christianity".  I know you want to stomp your little feet and hold your breath 'til you turn blue insisting this is about religion, but IT ISN'T.  And *that* is the point.  This isn't about religion; this is about lying.


----------



## ChrisL

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying does not win an argument, son, no matter how simple your views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happened as an application of Islamic justice.  Now, I realize you are extremely conformist and trying to protect Islam because of your fear of saying anything not pre-approved by your little peeps but to claim this isn't about Islam is downright stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a time marker.  If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years.  And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use _then_.  Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up.  There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on.  None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a *new* thing -- it's _already _a practice.
> 
> And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older.  And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is pointless.  The people who practice these forms of punishment are doing so in the name of their religious beliefs.  Nothing else really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, so were the Ku Klux Klan lynching black people; so were the various abortion bombers like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder.  Exact same thing.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one denying those things.


----------



## Pogo

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it doesn't.  That's why you're losing.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it now/Am I now.
> 
> If this is "Islamic justice", pray what the fuck is it when it takes place in India?  Or ancient Rome?  Or medieval England?
> 
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear. " -- Deutoronomy 21
> 
> "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." -- Leviticus 24
> 
> "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." --- Acts 7
> 
> "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." --- Numbers 15
> 
> “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” --- Leviticus 20
> 
> "You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -- Deuteronomy 20​
> ---- Old Testes.  _Centuries _before Mohammed ever existed.  A millennium at least.
> 
> Linear time, Dumbass.  Cultural practice, QED.
> 
> I love the way Moses specifies "they shall stone him with stones".  In case anybody was thinking of stoning him with, say, ice cream sammiches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are quoting the Old Testament, yet saying that these practices are not based on religious beliefs?  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a time marker.  If you're aware of when the OT was written, it predates Mohammed by a good thousand years.  And the accounts tell us the practice was already in use _then_.  Therefore it's impossible for Mohammed to have just made it up.  There's also a reference in the NT where it's going on.  None of these introduce the idea of social control execution as a *new* thing -- it's _already _a practice.
> 
> And specifically the case here (cause) is an HBV execution, which is not only prohibited by the Quran, it's far far FAR older.  And I'm repeating the same thing now for the umpteenth time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that is pointless.  The people who practice these forms of punishment are doing so in the name of their religious beliefs.  Nothing else really matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, so were the Ku Klux Klan lynching black people; so were the various abortion bombers like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder.  Exact same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one denying those things.
Click to expand...


Yes I know you see that.  I'm using an analogy to demonstrate how the fallacy works.  It's prolly still over his head though.  I need to take a Rosetta Stone course in Dumbdown.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Let's see here -- Muslims following the edict of an Imam versed in sharia law stone a woman to death, and a teenager on the internet is swearing and down that this Islamic punishment meted out by Muslims following this strict adherence to Islamic law has nothing to do with Islam.


  The Kool aid being served must be particularly strong today.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> Let's see here -- Muslims following the edict of an Imam versed in sharia law stone a woman to death, and a teenager on the internet is swearing and down that this Islamic punishment meted out by Muslims following this strict adherence to Islamic law has nothing to do with Islam.
> 
> 
> The Kool aid being served must be particularly strong today.



Open wide.

>> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so _the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue._ However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. << -- Origins of Honor Killing

--- Reposted from 35 posts ago, where it was reposted from 554 posts before that, after being reposted from other threads.

But that is of no consequence when we can just go  and pretend we never saw it.

Guess we'll just keep reposting until it occurs to somebody that there are words and sources there and maybe one should READ THEM.


There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "*my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge*." -- _Isaac Asimov, 1980_


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Pogo said:


> Open wide.
> 
> >> In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. *Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, *where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58
> 
> There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so _the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue._ However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam. << -- Origins of Honor Killing
> 
> --- Reposted from 35 posts ago, where it was reposted from 554 posts before that, after being reposted from other threads.
> 
> But that is of no consequence when we can just go  and pretend we never saw it.
> 
> Guess we'll just keep reposting until it occurs to somebody that there are words and sources there and maybe one should READ THEM.
> 
> 
> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "*my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge*." -- _Isaac Asimov, 1980_




It's really cute that you fancy yourself an intellectual when you are talking to a fellow who was admitted to Stanford back in 1972, child, but I do imagine you must have missed various passages in Sahih Bukhari that most certainly DO call for stoning.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> You obviously know nothing about Pogo.




I see little difference between Pogo and you, or any of a number of other authoritarian leftists who despise liberal principles to such a degree that you routinely defend their very antithesis.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Sahih Al-Bukhari | Hadith | Qur'an & Hadith | Alim.org

Sahih Al-Bukhari | Hadith | Qur'an & Hadith | Alim.org


----------



## IsaacNewton

Pogo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
Click to expand...



The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.

*- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -

And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.

Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.


----------



## Pogo

Dogmaphobe said:


> It's really cute that you fancy yourself an intellectual



Link?


----------



## Coyote

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know nothing about Pogo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see little difference between Pogo and you, or any of a number of other authoritarian leftists who despise liberal principles to such a degree that you routinely defend their very antithesis.
Click to expand...


Thanks 

I happen to like Pogo.

The rest of your spew is idiocy.


----------



## Pogo

Perhaps when Stanford's restroom had to admit he was a fellow back in 1972 he should have taken an anthropology course.


----------



## Coyote

Pogo said:


> Perhaps when Stanford's restroom had to admit he was a fellow back in 1972 he should have taken an anthropology course.





He likes to look down on people with less education (or what he presumes is less education)and for all his implicit intellectual and ethical superiority over us "authoritarian leftists" - what ever he means by that - his arguments seldom go deeper than bumper sticker philosophy.  You will likely not be able to engage him in a real discussion because he inevitably resorts to virulent personal attacks based on pre-conceived stereotypes.  This discussion is a perfect example.  You and I will now be labeled supporters of abusing women, or some rubbish.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Coyote said:


> I happen to like Pogo.




Well, that's certainly one strike against him.


----------



## ChrisL

I like Pogo and Dogmaphone.  Just because you don't agree on the issues doesn't mean either of you are bad people.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

ChrisL said:


> I like Pogo and Dogmaphone.  Just because you don't agree on the issues doesn't mean either of you are bad people.




 But you told me last night that I was very, very naughty, Chris.


----------



## theliq

IsaacNewton said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
Click to expand...

Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....


----------



## theliq

ChrisL said:


> I like Pogo and Dogmaphone.  Just because you don't agree on the issues doesn't mean either of you are bad people.


Thanks Chris


----------



## The Great Goose

theliq said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
Click to expand...

Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them. 

It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.


----------



## theliq

The Great Goose said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
Click to expand...

Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?


----------



## The Great Goose

theliq said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?
Click to expand...

Full dominatrix outfit.


----------



## theliq

The Great Goose said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full dominatrix outfit.
Click to expand...

AND there I was thinking that Gauntlets was all you were wearing,with a BULL WHIP of course.LOL


----------



## The Great Goose

theliq said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full dominatrix outfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AND there I was thinking that Gauntlets was all you were wearing,with a BULL WHIP of course.LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

The Great Goose said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
Click to expand...

Your haughty demeanor and strident tone have nothing to do with your correctness or lack thereof.

Failure of a poster to respond to your taunts is not a sign that you prevailed in any manner whatsoever.  More likely, it is a sign that you are being wisely ignored.


----------



## ChrisL

theliq said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full dominatrix outfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AND there I was thinking that Gauntlets was all you were wearing,with a BULL WHIP of course.LOL
Click to expand...


Just watch out for the swinging dick.


----------



## The Great Goose

asaratis said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "primitive patriarchy" is hardwired into the primitive religion called Islam. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference, here, as anybody who knows even a little bit about Sharia realizes the religious law is extremely hostile towards women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  It absolutely is.  It's hardwired into all the Abrahamic religions, because, as I keep pointing out, _that was the pre-existing culture.  _The culture_ precedes_ the religion, always, by definition.  Culture is the _first _structural system of community; it has to be.  Religion _follows_.
> 
> When the time comes that the two clash, the religion may proscribe it as a practice, as in the case of honor killing here (and in India with Hinduism and Sikhism) but the cultural roots are always deeper;  the practice continues *in spite of *the religion.  That's the whole POINT here.
> 
> But yes, all of these religions are obviously rooted in patriarchy.  How else can you possibly come up with the absurd concept that a creator is _*male*_?
> 
> 
> From my earlier post (last year) 237, since we're rehashing the whole thread:
> 
> In the interview, Sarhan explained, "'I killed her because she was no longer a virgin,' he told me. 'She made a mistake, willingly or not. It is better that one person dies than the whole family of shame and disgrace. It is like a box of apples. If you have one rotten apple would you keep it or get rid of it? I just got rid of it.' *When I challenged Sarhan by pointing out that his act contradicted the teachings of Islam and was punishable by God, he said, 'I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God, but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added, "I know my sister was killed unjustly but what can I do? *This is how society thinks*. Nobody really wants to kill his own sister." <<
> 
> (case history 2):
> 
> >> ... I, Rinde, grew up in Turkey and quickly realized it was not favorable to be born a girl. No matter what my brothers did it was accepted by my parents. On the other hand, they would talk over me as if I had nothing significant to say. My brothers and my parents would beat me on many occasions, especially when I did something to displease them, such as dare to talk back to them which was disapproved of since they were men. However, it was okay for them to slap me around to put me on "the right path".
> 
> *Their abuse was not dictated by religion *since my brothers were not really religious, nor did it come from love to "help me be a better person". However, I got off easy, because there were occasions where women would suddenly be missing. These women would vanish without a trace. It would be reported by a family in my village that "my daughter has committed suicide". It was obvious that they were killed by a family member, but no one would dare say anything. Being Kurdish, the *customs of our culture even before Islam's arrival* are more cemented than even the religion itself in the name of deeply rooted rituals and beliefs. Besides, most people never really study the Quran and have a very limited, distorted view of their own religion. Thus, they act on cultural impulse as Sarhan so aptly described it.<<
> 
> --- Deepak Chopra, Jim Buck and Rinde Pasori, "A Practical Approach to Talking about Honor Killing"​
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This need among leftists to spring into obfuscating defense whenever the subject is Islam may guarantee you props from similarly reactive peeps, but such defense is so entirely contradictory to actual liberal ideals as to be nearly the antithesis thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not "Islam" here Hunior.  Just because some partisan wackaloon wants to fashion an Association Fallacy that can easily be disproven, doesn't mean rational people take it seriously.  The topic here is logic and anthropological *fact*.  So your Appeal to Emotion deflection is denied.  Via the same Association Fallacy we could claim that Ku Klux Klan lynchings, the Matthew Sheppard murder, abortion bombings etc are "inherent in Christianism".  Correlation does not equal causation.  As long as we refuse to look deeply enough into the roots, we perpetuate and extend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The same is true in the US for kristians. Thankfully they haven't gone back to killing yet. For the most part.
> 
> *- "but I had to do what I had to do and I will answer to God when the time comes."* He added -
> 
> And that is the jist of it. Humans will do whatever they want, the only thing religion does is give them a handy excuse that is in easy reach to justify whatever it is they ALREADY WANTED TO DO. People in the south who _claim_ to be Christian but don't like black people and then set about burning a Church. Even the very symbol of the house of the 'god' they pretend to worship is not sacred compared to their animalistic desires and motivations. People who wail about abortion being wrong because it's murder then go and murder a doctor. Ignoring all teachings of Christ.
> 
> Religion is like living at the base of Mt. Vesuvius. It keeps you warm and protected from harsh weather but at the right moment it can turn on you and wipe out your entire civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your haughty demeanor and strident tone have nothing to do with your correctness or lack thereof.
> 
> Failure of a poster to respond to your taunts is not a sign that you prevailed in any manner whatsoever.  More likely, it is a sign that you are being wisely ignored.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about posters? I do that to the devil spawn in real life.


----------



## theliq

The Great Goose said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't American Christians Lynch and Murder Black People.....They sure did.....God will slay all these "Christians" and good riddance.....
> 
> 
> 
> Christianists are horrible. I delight in telling them in no uncertain terms that they will be thrown in the fire. By my haughty demeanor and strident tone they KNOW I'm right. You can see their hearts wither, because they see the true God in me and know he's not with them.
> 
> It's incredible to watch them have no comeback. You really feel infused with the spirit of God. Very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you wearing Black Leather gauntlets whilst in this state of personal atonement Goose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full dominatrix outfit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AND there I was thinking that Gauntlets was all you were wearing,with a BULL WHIP of course.LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If my friend Hoss was answering you post Goose,he would be screaming MORE,MORE,MORE.

As for myself I would be screaming HARDER,HARDER,HARDER.........LOL..just saying steve

I think we (well you actually) have THRASHED this thread  to Death...LOL...s


----------



## Likkmee

I'd venture to say that in Heaven the numbers will be in the tens of thousands, if not much less. When The Word says ( "it will be as in the days of Noah") Remember. He only left 8 people and some genetic material( in the ark---sorry no giraffes and elephants.just mammalian starting points)). Everything else was annihilated !


----------



## Likkmee

BTW. Why do you thunk they call you're beloved pollutants"fossil fuel" ? AHEM
Idiots


----------



## MaryL

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
Click to expand...


Looks to me like the problem is inability to construct a coherent sentence.


----------



## MaryL

Pogo said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like the problem is inability to construct a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...

What a incoherent sentence.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

MaryL said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the useful idiots are not liberal, since they do not support liberal values. 

They are just the mindless fundamentalists of the left who support anything their fellow leftists support. It doesn't have to make sense.  It only has to be agreed upon, and it is simply a case of monkey see, monkey do.


----------



## Mrs. M.

Mary L., did you read the Op-ed?  I am not a liberal!  I am an ultra conservative and a Christian who has written many articles about the dangers of Islam as well as stories about Muslim immigration being a danger to American citizens!  Were you by some chance responding to someone else and accidentally addressed me when you should have been addressing them?  It's hard to tell but I would agree with Pogo that your response does not make sense. Incoherent?  I would say that is an understatement if you were addressing me!  I'm not a liberal! Look at my Trump articles!  I voted for Trump!  NOT HILLARY.  Please read the Op-ed again please.  Thank you.


----------



## Mrs. M.

Dogmaphobe said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the useful idiots are not liberal, since they do not support liberal values.
> 
> They are just the mindless fundamentalists of the left who support anything their fellow leftists support. It doesn't have to make sense.  It only has to be agreed upon, and it is simply a case of monkey see, monkey do.
Click to expand...

Excuse me but Mary is quoting the wrong person.  I'm not a liberal and I am certainly not supporting leftists!  I believe Mary has me confused with someone else.  Who that is - is anyone's guess.


----------



## Mrs. M.

MaryL said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
Click to expand...

You're quoting the wrong person, Mary.  I'm a Christian.  I am not a liberal and I do not support Sharia Law nor have I ever defended Islam.  Please quote the person you are addressing.  It clearly is not me.


----------



## Pogo

Mrs. M. said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're quoting the wrong person, Mary.  I'm a Christian.  I am not a liberal and I do not support Sharia Law nor have I ever defended Islam.  Please quote the person you are addressing.  It clearly is not me.
Click to expand...



Don't get worked up.  This isn't nearly the first time MaryL has posted something unintelligible.  Everybody knows.
Actually as I already observed her dangling sentence fragment doesn't express a point anyway.  I think we should force such posters to clarify what it is they're saying before they're worthy of a response.  Not our job to interpret.


----------



## Mrs. M.

Pogo said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're quoting the wrong person, Mary.  I'm a Christian.  I am not a liberal and I do not support Sharia Law nor have I ever defended Islam.  Please quote the person you are addressing.  It clearly is not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get worked up.  This isn't nearly the first time MaryL has posted something unintelligible.  Everybody knows.
> Actually as I already observed her dangling sentence fragment doesn't express a point anyway.  I think we should force such posters to clarify what it is they're saying before they're worthy of a response.  Not our job to interpret.
Click to expand...

Thank you.  I couldn't agree with you more, Pogo.  I have no idea where that diatribe came from.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Mrs. M. said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a American and liberal and despise religion (Christianity) , HOW can you at the same time defend Islam? Christians won't actually hurt you. Muslims will literally . Sharia law is a contradiction  of America precepts of separation   of church and state  in that same sense dosen't t justify murdering non believers or taxing non Christians like Sharia law and Muslims actually DO. Liberal are so conflicted on this. What Is the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the useful idiots are not liberal, since they do not support liberal values.
> 
> They are just the mindless fundamentalists of the left who support anything their fellow leftists support. It doesn't have to make sense.  It only has to be agreed upon, and it is simply a case of monkey see, monkey do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me but Mary is quoting the wrong person.  I'm not a liberal and I am certainly not supporting leftists!  I believe Mary has me confused with someone else.  Who that is - is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...


Why do you think I'm talking about you?

I am not.


----------



## MaryL

Liberals bash Catholicism or religion in general., Geo. Carlin was a funny guy. In his superficial way. Would Islam tolerate a similar female questioning ISLAM? Um, all equations break down here, Islam would never allow such mockery or questioning. Sharia law forbids it. It's a fact.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Liberals bash Catholicism or religion in general., Geo. Carlin was a funny guy. In his superficial way. Would Islam tolerate a similar female questioning ISLAM? Um, all equations break down here, Islam would never allow such mockery or questioning. Sharia law forbids it. It's a fact.



​


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Delta4Embassy said:


> Jesus also said 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's.' Or, don't interfere in other countries' cultures. Fix your own first.



That is not what he said, dipshit.


----------



## Omahajoe

Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'





Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'





Mrs. M. said:


> Afghan officials said Rokhsahana (her image pixelated) was stoned to death about a week ago in a Taliban-controlled area just outside Firozkoh (AFP Photo/)​
> The story of a young woman who was married against her will and then stoned to death after she was caught eloping with a man her own age is heart wrenching.
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> It is written:
> 
> ....he lifted himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> John 8:7-11
> 
> Perhaps there is no greater picture of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God than in this particular story.  Many theologians have speculated about what Jesus was writing on the ground.  Was it the names of the men who were ready to stone her to death?  Perhaps they had slept with her!
> 
> The Scriptures do not tell us.  What we do know is that Jesus said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  Not one of those men cast that first stone.  Jesus spoke the truth and the truth set them free.  In an instant they knew they had no grounds to do what they were about to do.
> 
> What has happened to this young girl in Afghanistan is wrong. The motive for her execution was religious yet not of God.  This is not God condemning a young woman to death for her sins but rather a group of misguided, religious zealots who are blind to their own wretched, naked, sinful condition.
> 
> My Pastor has a saying, "God fix me first".   I believe if these men were to examine their own hearts and listen to their own conscience, they might realize they need God's help.  I believe if they would remove the timber from their own eye they would be able to see clearly to remove the speck in someone else's eye.
> 
> I believe what this world needs more than anything right now, is the attitude of "God fix me first".   Jesus said, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you.
> 
> As the conscience was the catalyst in each man dropping their stones and leaving the adulterous woman to obtain mercy from God, today the conscience is still our guide to doing what is right and obtaining mercy from God.
> 
> God alone is the judge of men.  Our assistance is not required.  What is required of us?
> 
> He hath showed thee, O man, what _is _good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
> Micah 6:8
> 
> The best prayer?
> Begins with......  God fix me first.
> 
> 
> ____________
> Article based on news report from Yahoo News 11/3/2015
> Afghan woman stoned to death for 'adultery'


----------



## Omahajoe

The Bible is crystal clear on this subject. Women who commit adultery need to be pummeled with stones until they are dead.

I don't understand the problem.

(Actually I do understand the problem. It is that old silly book that people say they follow, but do not read.)

There is a name for what happens to people who read that book - Atheism.


----------

