Firstly, I need to admonish myself from the dastardliness of Islam and emancipate myself to a freer and safer haven of speech.
I cannot comment openly within the destitute Island of islam, so I am hoping that simple democracy will allow free expression of opinion.
It seems that Abu (the big poo) has deleted every comment of mine regarding the decision of "Comedy Central" to censor an episode of Southpark which has ( ;D) offended the muslim faith.
Here is a clip of the offensive material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG0quz3Gu8g

Do you know what Abu? We've already won the right to dictate to you what is offensive and what is not. In our nation poo - not thu backward Islamic loser nation.. You oughta take a large dose of shut thu f@3k up big poo. What part of shut thu fu@k up don't you understand?


Here is an Ottoman depiction of Mo, overseeing the smiting of heads:

---

Whatchya got to say big poo?

Doesn't Mo look better in a bear suit?

..I'd bloody well think so.

at least I can delete my own garbage

..and more

Your IP address is noted. We have tracked you down, o infidel.

A copy of the Prayertower has been sent to your address, and we will be visiting you soon.

Quote:

copy of the Prayertower has been sent to your address, and we will be visiting you soon.

Thankyou,  I await with baited breath.

So was that a depiction of Mo or not?

Amadd wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:

Mo..the coward of the ages. Mo..the loser of the ages. Nowonder he (?) won't show himself  ;D

If you're waiting for the Second Coming, you've been reading the wrong book.

Amadd wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

No acceptance for you Abu. You are not acceptable. You have shown yourself again and again in no uncertain terms, now it's time to accept the truth that you and your ilk are not about integration into a successful society,

This is true and it is our fault when we pretend it is not so.


Quote:

you are all about an illogical loserville. Your wld ideas are done and dusted Abu, deal with it like a man, not the imaginary idol that you have stated that you are so against. You cannot survive in a logical world Abu, it's time to implement your real God.

Exactly, and so they have set about changing - the world. What else?

And it is our fault that we pretend they are not.

The only answer is a robust commitment to what we call 'our values'. Alas, we have been pandering to inferior cultures for so long that we feel guilty about asserting and defnding the qualities of our own, fearing echos of nazism. We are that stupid, or rather too many of us are.

Paradoxically, it is precisely these enlightenment values that attract the masses of the world to the west. If for no other reason (and this is the weakest of reasosn possible) we should assert these values in defense of those masses we host. We should expect from them nothing less than that they declare and defend the values that attracted them to our countries. Those who refuse or dissemble should - what's the popular expression? ah yes!  - bugger off. Or the very least should be made unwelcome in no uncertian terms until they do.

It is a scandal that we are afraid to call a spade a spade.

An infallible indicator of how alien islam is that Muslims have no sense of being utterly ridiculous.
They couldn't be more laughable even if they each had a bone through their noses.

You sound like a complete lunatic Amadd. Any more talk of violence and I will consider it a threat.

I would like to remind you all that Abu spoke against violence and against legal repurcussions for criticism of Muhammed and instead promoted the idea of a boycott, which to me seems like the embodiment of western values.

Think about it.

He has never ever spoken out against islamic violence. At most he has said he wouldn't do it himself but understands the motivations of those who do it. It is against his religion to condemn fellow muslims in front of infidels.

You bear responsibility for allowing the existence of a no-go board, effectively moderated along sharia rules, on your forum.


It is telling that you are prepared to be firm with a non-muslim but would not draw the line for sharia rule on your own forum even when death threats are issued for NOT showing Mohammed on South Park.

Think about it.

Are you suggesting I silence Abu to defend free speech?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

Are you suggesting I silence Abu to defend free speech?

You don't have to silence anyone to defnd free speech. You just shouldn't allow  Abu to silence others in defence of his sharia - on your board.

I hope you see the difference.


I suggest you have one rule for all your boards. Either make it all sharia, like Muslim Village and AussieMuslims, or make none of it sharia. You allow Abu to silence othes along rules that you do not apply. You effectively allowed him to set up a ghetto on your board, ruled by his rules, not the forum rules.

Think about it.

Check how many people are banned on each of the members run forums and see if those people are alsoe banned on other forums.
See if there's a pattern.

Who is being silenced?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:20pm:

Who is being silenced?

See how many are banned from the Islam forum but not the others.

Them.

So Amadd has been silenced? He doesn't sound very silent to me.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:40pm:

So Amadd has been silenced? He doesn't sound very silent to me.

He is silenced on the Islam forum. Who else is banned from there but not elsewhere?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:20pm:

Who is being silenced?

Are you trying to say that you haven't allowed sharia rule on parts of your board?

I apologise for stating my point in those terms, however, the point is that I do feel threathened for posting the Southpark clip.
Should I need to feel threatened?
Well, seeing that the supposed "moderate" muslim Abu has banned me from his little islamic state for posting the clip, I think that I am fully justified in feeling threatened by more extremist muslims.

..and besides, muslims have been depicting Mo for centuries. Have a look at how many pics you fcan ind of him with just a simple google.
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

Quote:

Well, seeing that the supposed "moderate" muslim Abu has banned me from his little islamic state for posting the clip, I think that I am fully justified in feeling threatened by more extremist muslims.

That doesn't sound justified to me. There is a huge gap between being banned from an internet forum and being genuinely threatened. I've been there.

I would have to agree that complete banning from any board should only be done in extreme cases and only where the senior moderator or forum owner also agrees.

The unilateral arbitrary banning of members by a board moderator skews the collective opinion of the board towards the sensibilities of one moderator and is therefore not representative of general opinion on this forum.

No board should be allowed to include in its terms that a member can be arbitrarily banned where that member's opinions or style of delivery is not consistent with those of the moderator.

However, I believe the moderator has the right to remove individual posts that are threatening, or have no point other than to be abusive or reveal members' identities etc... If a member persists with the practise, then he/she would be a candidate for complete banning from the board after warning then agreement from the board moderator and forum owner.

It's noteworthy that the Islam board's moderator - the worst offender of arbitrary banning - himself was banned from a Muslim forum and then tried to subvert that banning by rejoining under a different member name. This indicates not only his hypocrisy here, but demonstrates that he too does not agree with his own kind's deranged and fanatical obsession with limiting free speech (at least where it concerns his own freedoms)... Although he appears only too willing to partake in similar pathology here.

This demonstrates again that religion is the progenitor, par excellence, of blatant hypocrisy.

Quote:

That doesn't sound justified to me. There is a huge gap between being banned from an internet forum and being genuinely threatened. I've been there.

But the fact is that I did feel threatened immediately after posting the cartoon in consideration of Abu's actions. I don't feel like it's any safe haven at all just because I posted outside of his Islamic state, his opinion will still be same, so too extremist opinions.
"Is that OK to show here?" "I don't know, I guess we'll see".


Considering the pictures I've shown or linked to of Islamic Mo depictions,  who wouldn't find it hypocritical for them to be dictating terms as they do?

It should be noted that many muslims have been depicting Mo over the centuries with no apparent backlash until it was somehow decided that his image should not be shown and should be punishable by death in some instances.
So forget the "respect for Islam" thing. Just say what you think, it's a ridiculous concept and it's offensive to most Australians to be told what we can or cannot create images of.

Depicting humans in art is harmless and a natural human expression. Only pathological elements of certain religions ban it and recommend severe penalties for those who transgress. Muslims, particularly, who extend those penalties beyond those of the faith, should be confronted and severely censured at every opportunity. They are representative of all that is evil in religion.

Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:20pm: Who is being silenced? Are you trying to say that you haven't allowed sharia rule on parts of your board?

That's the problem with these forums. Turn your back for one second and contributors get stoned to death  ;)  

Good to see, Muso, that you haven't lost you knack for missing the point, again for the sake of showing how reflexively oblique you can be.

Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:20pm: Who is being silenced? Are you trying to say that you haven't allowed sharia rule on parts of your board?

IMHO, it is a good thing that helps to detect the cancer of islamic caliphate in laboratory environment before it grows to fatal proportion in the wild.

Quote:

I apologise for stating my point in those terms, however, the point is that I do feel threathened for posting the Southpark clip.

You didn't seem to feel threatened. You were deliberately provoking Abu - not with the video, but with the language and insults.

tallowood wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 7:42pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:57pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:20pm: Who is being silenced? Are you trying to say that you haven't allowed sharia rule on parts of your board? IMHO, it is a good thing that helps to detect the cancer of islamic caliphate in laboratory environment before it grows to fatal proportion in the wild.

I agree. The corollary is that, once we have diagnosed, we must apply treatment.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 7:56pm:

Quote: I apologise for stating my point in those terms, however, the point is that I do feel threathened for posting the Southpark clip. You didn't seem to feel threatened. You were deliberately provoking Abu - not with the video, but with the language and insults.

I provoke atheists to the point when they go apes:) but to their credit they don't ban me so why out of all religions, including atheism, :) only islam is so over sensitive?

Quote:

I agree. The corollary is that, once we have diagnosed, we must apply treatment.

Like the 'special treatment' the Nazi's used with Jews, gypsies and the disabled?

Tallowood, Abu takes a lot of crap in this place. I'm not around enough to figure out if it's justified or not, but I doubt it. He's attacked for defending his religion and I admire him for standing his ground.

I do, however, agree that most muslims are oversensitive about their religion.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:07pm:

Quote: I agree. The corollary is that, once we have diagnosed, we must apply treatment. Like the 'special treatment' the Nazi's used with Jews, gypsies and the disabled?

OOhhh.. spooky. SO you are saying that we must never again confront bad people because the last time bad people confronted people they declared bad was bad.

Don't be so goddamn shallow.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:07pm:

Quote: I agree. The corollary is that, once we have diagnosed, we must apply treatment. Like the 'special treatment' the Nazi's used with Jews, gypsies and the disabled?

I think that comparing muslims to Jews, gypsies and the disabled would make a a ban in islamic forum.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:12pm:

Tallowood, Abu takes a lot of crap in this place. I'm not around enough to figure out if it's justified or not, but I doubt it. He's attacked for defending his religion and I admire him for standing his ground. I do, however, agree that most muslims are oversensitive about their religion.

You would, by that reckoning, admire a nazi defending his beliefs. WHich is, in fact what you are actually doing.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:12pm:

Tallowood, Abu takes a lot of crap in this place. I'm not around enough to figure out if it's justified or not, but I doubt it. He's attacked for defending his religion and I admire him for standing his ground. I do, however, agree that most muslims are oversensitive about their religion.

Natasha, everybody takes a lot of crap in this place. It is like a Mecca of crap or may be Rome, London, Paris, Washington, Moscow, Peking etc.  Also abu gives out a lot of crap of his own, e.g. I was banned from there when I replied to him in his own style.
Anyway as I said before I'm glad to see Islam under the spotlight of islamic justice because before I was too tolerant to it and now I can see why it should be stopped.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:07pm:

Quote: I agree. The corollary is that, once we have diagnosed, we must apply treatment. Like the 'special treatment' the Nazi's used with Jews, gypsies and the disabled?

When Muslims allow the kind of access to their countries by nonmuslim as the west allows acess to itself by non-westerners, you may have a point. Until then, you are a mere useful idiot.  
As always, in a caring and nurturing way.

Quote:

I provoke atheists to the point when they go apesSmiley but to their credit they don't ban me so why out of all religions, including atheism, Smiley only islam is so over sensitive?

I have not been banned from Muslim village. I have been banned from that atheist board. They were just as shamelessly hypocritical.

Quote:

SO you are saying that we must never again confront bad people because the last time bad people confronted people they declared bad was bad.

What? I'm saying that likening a whole group of people to cancer and then advocating the application of treatment sounds exactly like what the nazis did.


Quote:

I think that comparing muslims to Jews, gypsies and the disabled would make a a ban in islamic forum.

Why?



Quote:

You would, by that reckoning, admire a nazi defending his beliefs. WHich is, in fact what you are actually doing.

I forgot you would be reading this, Soren; I should have put in a disclaimer. But then that wouldn't work , would it? You'd still try and find a way to twist my words into something else to suit yourself.

Quote:

Natasha, everybody takes a lot of crap in this place. It is like a Mecca of crap or may be Rome, London, Paris, Washington, Moscow, Peking etc.

Who's Natasha?


Quote:

Until then, you are a mere useful idiot.   As always, in a caring and nurturing way.

Oh yeah. And as always, I'm feeling the love.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

Quote: Natasha, everybody takes a lot of crap in this place. It is like a Mecca of crap or may be Rome, London, Paris, Washington, Moscow, Peking etc.   Who's Natasha? [quote]Until then, you are a mere useful idiot.   As always, in a caring and nurturing way.

Oh yeah. And as always, I'm feeling the love.[/quote]

Natasha is Yakutian name for Annie  8-)

I didn't write that.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:41pm:

Quote: SO you are saying that we must never again confront bad people because the last time bad people confronted people they declared bad was bad. What? I'm saying that likening a whole group of people to cancer and then advocating the application of treatment sounds exactly like what the nazis did. [quote]I think that comparing muslims to Jews, gypsies and the disabled would make a a ban in islamic forum.

Why?



Quote:

You would, by that reckoning, admire a nazi defending his beliefs. WHich is, in fact what you are actually doing.

I forgot you would be reading this, Soren; I should have put in a disclaimer. But then that wouldn't work , would it? You'd still try and find a way to twist my words into something else to suit yourself. [/quote]


Annie, which Muslim country would you like to live in?

I don't mind savage brutality if Arabs think god told them to be like that, PROVIDED they keep it in their own countries.
Bringing savage brutality here is not on.

The burqa, sharia law, fatwahs on Rushdie and South Park, honour killings and genital mutilation, daily threats and acts of hostility are not welcome by me. You reflexivley side with savages and primitives because you think that that is the moral and accomodating  thing to do. It isn't. I do not want to accommodate people who are fundamentally hostile to everything that is important in this country. Everything.

You tell us one thing that you hold dear, in your reflexively accomodating way, that Muslims would not do away with in this country if they could set the rules.

Quote:

Annie, which Muslim country would you like to live in? I don't mind savage brutality if Arabs think god told them to be like that, PROVIDED they keep it in their own countries. Bringing savage brutality here is not on. The burqa, sharia law, fatwahs on Rushdie and South Park, honour killings and genital mutilation, daily threats and acts of hostility are not welcome by me. You reflexivley side with savages and primitives because you think that that is the moral and accomodating  thing to do. It isn't.

The burqa, honour killings and genital mutilation of girls have nothing to do with Islam. In fact, honour killings are against Islam.

Do you support the right of parents to mutilate the genitals of little boys in Australia?

To answer your question, I can't think of anywhere in the world I'd rather live than Australia. Do you think if I thought Muslims were a threat to my way of life I would defend them?

Quote:

Do you think if I thought Muslims were a threat to my way of life I would defend them?

Do you think the potential is there? Would you defend Nazis provided they were in a minoirty?

Quote:

Do you think the potential is there? Would you defend Nazis provided they were in a minoirty?

I honestly don't think the potential is there. Islam is not a threat to our way of life, and neither are most muslims. Some of the loveliest people I've met have been religious muslims. There seems to be this perception that they're out there waiting for a chance to rip our freedoms out from under us - it's just not true.

That being said, I do think fundamentalists of any kind can be  dangerous.

There were a lot of superficially nice nazis. There are a lot of Muslims around. Suppose every majority Muslim country banned together to form a large empire and they got their poo together? Would they be a potential threat then? These things could happen overnight.

Quote:

There were a lot of superficially nice nazis.

Oskar Schindler was a nazi. I'd hardly call him superficially nice (I don't know if I just made your point, Soren's or mine).


Quote:

Suppose every majority Muslim country banned together to form a large empire and they got their poo together? Would they be a potential threat then?

Got together to do what? What d you think the great evil plan of all muslim countries is?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:03pm:

Do you think if I thought Muslims were a threat to my way of life I would defend them?

Cute.

Would muslims allow your way of lif is the question.

ANd yes, they are a threat to your way of life, too. And since you are defending them, the answer is yes, you are defending them even though they are a threat to your way of life - the definition of a useful idiot.

Quote:

What d you think the great evil plan of all muslim countries is?

Muslim people, not countries. Their evil plan is to impose Islam on the world.

Quote:

You didn't seem to feel threatened. You were deliberately provoking Abu - not with the video, but with the language and insults.

Attack and defense are really one in the same. I don't care too much about the morals of attacking Poo Bear when basic freedoms are being compromised. He is there to spread the lies of Islam, of which you seem to buy into.

If it were to come down to it, it would be us who you have compromised that you would be running to for solace and protection from the evils of Islam, not them.

The furtherment of Islamic lies is that a depiction of Mo is forbidden in the quran. It is not. The ambiguous writings of the quran have been interpreted over the ages to suit whatever lies might be believed and therefore accrue more control by compromising the good democratic name of "respect for opinion or belief".
The tact of this "non-depiction of Mo" thing revolves around the intent to make Mo more of a mystery, more seductive, and therefore more powerful than (the imaginary) Jesus. It's little wonder that women are often seduced by this pathetic mystery (lie).

As I think I have shown, there have been many depictions of Mo throughout the history of Islam. It's only been in the last few hundred years that it has been agreed that a "soap opera" is more profitable for the spread of lies.

If the word of Alan was lost within the first 1000 years of Islam, then who was it that more recently enlightened the muslim pundits? They've shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.
Abu has shown himself as a liar for supporting the lies of Islam and I am all too aware that there are extremists out there who don't like people stating the elephant in the room when they have a perfectly good lie going on.
So if you expect me to support you at some time in the future Annie, I wont. I'll leave you to it.
Enjoy.i

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:11pm:

I honestly don't think the potential is there. Islam is not a threat to our way of life, and neither are most muslims. Some of the loveliest people I've met have been religious muslims. There seems to be this perception that they're out there waiting for a chance to rip our freedoms out from under us - it's just not true. That being said, I do think fundamentalists of any kind can be  dangerous.

Not all Muslims may be psychologically equipped to advance Islam, but nevertheless, it is the duty of Muslims to do so.

Christianity requires the same of Christians.

However, with Islam, think late medieval Christianity in terms of its vehemence and its contempt for those who have not submitted to the will of the Abrahamic warrior god.

Quote:

If it were to come down to it, it would be us who you have compromised that you would be running to for solace and protection from the evils of Islam, not them.

Quote:

So if you expect me to support you at some time in the future Annie, I wont. I'll leave you to it.

Quote:

It's little wonder that women are often seduced by this pathetic mystery (lie).

Yes, please leave me to it. I find your sexism nauseating. And typical.



Quote:

The tact of this "non-depiction of Mo" thing revolves around the intent to make Mo more of a mystery, more seductive, and therefore more powerful than (the imaginary) Jesus.

The banning of pictures of Muhammad is a safeguard against idol worship. There's no big conspiracy or secret ulterior motive.

Helian,


Quote:

Not all Muslims may be psychologically equipped to advance Islam, but nevertheless, it is the duty of Muslims to do so.

What would you have them do?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:38am:

Quote: Helian, [quote]Not all Muslims may be psychologically equipped to advance Islam, but nevertheless, it is the duty of Muslims to do so. What would you have them do?

[/quote]
It's not what I would have them do, but, by religious duty, what they must do.

Okay. What would religious duty have them do?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:38am:

The banning of pictures of Muhammad is a safeguard against idol worship. There's no big conspiracy or secret ulterior motive.

Then its only a half-hearted attempt. The writing of his name should then also be banned and the honorific - peace be upon him - would by that be obviated. These are subversive ways to practise the idolisation they claim to forbid. Do you imagine that Muslim reverence for Mohammed could be any more potent if his images in art were tolerated? Muslim obsession about forbidding his image betrays their covert idolisation of the man, as does emulating the acts of his life including for some the marriage to and intercourse with pre-pubescent girls.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:49am:

Okay. What would religious duty have them do?

Advance the cause of Islam by whatever means available to them physically and/or psychologically. Including covert approval of extreme acts where they are born of the need to avenge, defend or advance the cause of Islam.

Quote:

The banning of pictures of Muhammad is a safeguard against idol worship. There's no big conspiracy or secret ulterior motive.

That's worked a treat hasn't it?  ;D
There is nothing in the quran that prohibits images of Mo, it is idol worship that is considered a sin.
But considering the great one can only be a perception in human minds, it is their own perception that they are actually idolising, ie: themselves.

Amadd wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:19am:

But considering the great one can only be a perception in human minds, it is their own perception that they are actually idolising, ie: themselves.

True. Covert idolisation.

Quote:

Advance the cause of Islam by whatever means available to them physically and/or psychologically. Including covert approval of extreme acts where they are born of the need to avenge, defend or advance the cause of Islam.

I can agree with that.


Quote:

But considering the great one can only be a perception in human minds, it is their own perception that they are actually idolising, ie: themselves.

The same could be said of anybody who believes in God.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 11:14am:

Quote: Advance the cause of Islam by whatever means available to them physically and/or psychologically. Including covert approval of extreme acts where they are born of the need to avenge, defend or advance the cause of Islam. I can agree with that.

So now we are left only with the definition of those acts that constitute an affront to Islam... Such as depicting an image of Mohammed, after which every Muslim is duty-bound to condemn and for which the penalty, to be applied indiscriminately to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, can be anything from angry rebukes to assault or to death... All of which are approved at least in principle by Muslims in lieu of a direct act of commission.

Quote:

The same could be said of anybody who believes in God.

Yes. Depending on how adamant they are of what God said or didn't say.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:52am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 9:38am: The banning of pictures of Muhammad is a safeguard against idol worship. There's no big conspiracy or secret ulterior motive. Then its only a half-hearted attempt. The writing of his name should then also be banned and the honorific - peace be upon him - would by that be obviated. These are subversive ways to practise the idolisation they claim to forbid. Do you imagine that Muslim reverence for Mohammed could be any more potent if his images in art were tolerated? Muslim obsession about forbidding his image betrays their covert idolisation of the man, as does emulating the acts of his life including for some the marriage to and intercourse with pre-pubescent girls.

Indeed.

Islam is an excellent example of what happens when EVERY religious tenet, hunch, insight is misunderstood. It simply does not have anything new in it except amazing instances of misunderstanding. It has the Midas touch for getting everything wrong.

Go ahead and try. See if you can find anything in it that is not lifted from the Jews or Christians without alteration or that is not a complete misunderstanding of either.

You can rail against Judaism and Christianity in the basis of their clever deception of the gullible. Islam, on the other hand, is laughably gauche and inept. It doesn't have a smart bone in its body.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Indeed. Islam is an excellent example of what happens when EVERY religious tenet, hunch, insight is misunderstood. It simply does not have anything new in it except amazing instances of misunderstanding. It has the Midas touch for getting everything wrong.

Don't worry, you can be sure Christian interpreters of Jewish scripture, separated from its Jewish roots also misunderstood and mistranslated them.


Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Go ahead and try. See if you can find anything in it that is not lifted from the Jews or Christians without alteration or that is not a complete misunderstanding of either.

If you set out to call an orange an apple, at the very least you have to convince your audience that both are the same colour. Ignorance among the Arabs of Jewish and Christian theology clearly gave him the fighting chance he needed to get away with it.

Also, there were many sects of unorthodox Christianity still in existence outside the reach of Rome during Mohammed's lifetime.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:29pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 9:01pm: Indeed. Islam is an excellent example of what happens when EVERY religious tenet, hunch, insight is misunderstood. It simply does not have anything new in it except amazing instances of misunderstanding. It has the Midas touch for getting everything wrong. Don't worry, you can be sure Christian interpreters of Jewish scripture, separated from its Jewish roots also misunderstood and mistranslated them.

The early Christians had the advantage of being jews. Jesus's every utterance is in reference to the OT. He new his judaism backwards.


He wasn't just prattling and blustering ignorantly, holding steadfastly on to the wrong end of the stick like Mohammed.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:35pm:

The early Christians had the advantage of being jews. Jesus's every utterance is in reference to the OT. He new his judaism backwards.

The authors of Matthew and John were not Jewish and were Greek speakers (definitely not Aramaic speakers) as evidenced by their misunderstandings and mistranslations.

“Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him  Emmanuel,”.

But they didn't, they called him Jesus (Joshua).

Bit of a misunderstanding on Matthew's part. Emmanuel means "God with us", Joshua means "God saves"

Noone ever said that Christianity is like Mohammedanism, based on the dictation from Gawd of a nan eternal book in heaven.
Whether a misunderstanding or not, the space between god with us and go saves has been fertile ground for interpretation and exegesis. Conversation with god, if you like.

Paul was a jew. John was a jew. The apostles were jews. Jesus was a jew. Christianity makes no sense - insofar as it makes sense - without judaism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:43pm:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 9:35pm: The early Christians had the advantage of being jews. Jesus's every utterance is in reference to the OT. He new his judaism backwards. The authors of Matthew and John were not Jewish and were Greek speakers (definitely not Aramaic speakers) as evidenced by their misunderstandings and mistranslations. “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him  Emmanuel,”. But they didn't, they called him Jesus (Joshua). Bit of a misunderstanding on Matthew's part. Emmanuel means "God with us", Joshua means "God saves"

God saves, Onan spends. Whatcha gonna do?!?

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Noone ever said that Christianity is like Mohammedanism, based on the dictation from Gawd of a nan eternal book in heaven.

With the exception of the ten commandments and the likes of Ezekiel that is...


Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Whether a misunderstanding or not, the space between god with us and go saves has been fertile ground for interpretation and exegesis. Conversation with god, if you like.

And there's plenty more... Like Matthew's acrobatics in getting Jesus born in Bethlehem...  and the ass and colt thing...


Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Paul was a jew. John was a jew. The apostles were jews. Jesus was a jew. Christianity makes no sense - insofar as it makes sense - without judaism.

And yet the Christian god is nothing like Yahweh.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:18pm:

God saves, Onan spends. Whatcha gonna do?!?

Shouldda learned Aramaic and Hebrew and a bit about Judaism would've been a help.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:31pm:

And yet the Christian god is nothing like Yahweh.

That is not so. The whole point of the new testament is that it is a - how to put it? - a new testament.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 11:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2010 at 10:31pm: And yet the Christian god is nothing like Yahweh. That is not so. The whole point of the new testament is that it is a - how to put it? - a new testament.

Replete with a brand new 3 faced god.