Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92349
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2340 - Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:05pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 5:19pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:24pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:45pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:07pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 12:53pm:

Good point, FD.

G, how do you know the smallpox virus that killed off the Eora Boongs came from Europe?

How do you know it didn't come from Islam?

'cause it moved northwards from Sydney Cove, rather than southwards from the Top End... Roll Eyes

Yes, but couldn't one of the Muselmen have stowed away on the First Fleet, got to Sydney and released his sinister virus as a form of Mohammedan terrorist genocide?

The incubation period for Smallpox is 7-17 days from infection. The First Fleet's last port of call was Cape Town, in South Africa. The journey time under sale from Cape Town was more than six weeks, Karnal. There were no reports of anybody onboard suffering from Smallpox because all had been vaccinated against the disease in the UK. No one was picked up in Cape Town, as far as I can tell. So, no body, Muslim or otherwise were suffering from Smallpox when the First Fleet arrived. Roll Eyes

Of course there were no reports. The Muselman was hiding in one of the lifeboats.

And living off, what?

Quote:

Don't try and fool us with vaccines again, Brian. You know they didn't have vaccines in 1787. The European race invented vaccines later, in order to save the tinted races.

Quote:

The smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796 by the British physician Edward Jenner and although at least six people had used the same principles years earlier he was the first to publish evidence that it was effective and to provide advice on its production.

[Source]

Quote:

Two reports on the Chinese practice of inoculation were received by the Royal Society in London in 1700; one by Dr. Martin Lister who received a report by an employee of the East India Company stationed in China and another by Clopton Havers.[31] According to Voltaire (1742), the Turks derived their use of inoculation to neighbouring Circassia. Voltaire does not speculate on where the Circassians derived their technique from, though he reports that the Chinese have practiced it "these hundred years".[32] The Greek physicians Emmanuel Timonis (1669–1720) from the island of Chios and Jacob Pylarinos (1659–1718) from Cephalonia practised smallpox inoculation at Constantinople in the beginning of 18th century[33] and published their work in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1714.[34][35] This kind of inoculation and other forms of variolation were introduced into England by Lady Montagu, a famous English letter-writer and wife of the English ambassador at Istanbul between 1716 and 1718, who almost died from smallpox as a young adult and was physically scarred from it. Inoculation was adopted both in England and in America nearly half a century before Jenner's famous smallpox vaccine of 1796

[Source]

So, inoculation was in use in the UK well before Jenner writing about it. Roll Eyes

Then how do you explain the Boongs catching a Muslim disease? Tell me that.

Variola. The dried scabs of a Smallpox sufferer. The First Fleet carried a supply of them. This remained viable long after they had been removed from the sufferer. It was not Muslims which brought it to Australia but the First Fleeters. Roll Eyes

So you admit it was a Muslim disease.

We've got him, FD.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92349
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2341 - Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:07pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Quote:

Because you asked me what my theory on blaming "racial groups" on diseases was. You were literally the first person in that discussion to bring up race out of nowhere.

You said you blamed Europeans for European diseases and Arabs for Arab diseases. That you deny the existence of races does not mean you were not the first to mention them.

Quote:

I then answered by referring to a "group" of people, and said you are free to call them a "race" - not that I believed they definitely are a race.

Why would you do this Gandalf? Do you often respond to accusations of racism by agreeing that you are blaming races for diseases?

Quote:

So quick question for you FD - do you agree a "group" of people went a raping and pillaging and spreading diseases in the new world during the colonial period - and do you agree that "group" were from "Europe"? If so, is it ok to call them "Europeans" without being a ghastly racist - sorry wacist?

You said you blame Europeans for European diseases, Arabs for Arab diseases etc, and you even suggested I can describe the groups you hold responsible for this diseases as races. This is the first I have seen you backpedal.

How do you know the diseases came from Europe?

Can you give some examples of Arab diseases that you blame Arabs for?

Muslim diseases, FD, not Arab. Muslims are not a race.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2342 - Feb 24^th, 2018 at 2:36pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 11:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 5:19pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:24pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:45pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 3:07pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 12:53pm:

Good point, FD.

G, how do you know the smallpox virus that killed off the Eora Boongs came from Europe?

How do you know it didn't come from Islam?

'cause it moved northwards from Sydney Cove, rather than southwards from the Top End... Roll Eyes

Yes, but couldn't one of the Muselmen have stowed away on the First Fleet, got to Sydney and released his sinister virus as a form of Mohammedan terrorist genocide?

The incubation period for Smallpox is 7-17 days from infection. The First Fleet's last port of call was Cape Town, in South Africa. The journey time under sale from Cape Town was more than six weeks, Karnal. There were no reports of anybody onboard suffering from Smallpox because all had been vaccinated against the disease in the UK. No one was picked up in Cape Town, as far as I can tell. So, no body, Muslim or otherwise were suffering from Smallpox when the First Fleet arrived. Roll Eyes

Of course there were no reports. The Muselman was hiding in one of the lifeboats.

And living off, what?

Quote:

Don't try and fool us with vaccines again, Brian. You know they didn't have vaccines in 1787. The European race invented vaccines later, in order to save the tinted races.

Quote:

The smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796 by the British physician Edward Jenner and although at least six people had used the same principles years earlier he was the first to publish evidence that it was effective and to provide advice on its production.

[Source]

Quote:

Two reports on the Chinese practice of inoculation were received by the Royal Society in London in 1700; one by Dr. Martin Lister who received a report by an employee of the East India Company stationed in China and another by Clopton Havers.[31] According to Voltaire (1742), the Turks derived their use of inoculation to neighbouring Circassia. Voltaire does not speculate on where the Circassians derived their technique from, though he reports that the Chinese have practiced it "these hundred years".[32] The Greek physicians Emmanuel Timonis (1669–1720) from the island of Chios and Jacob Pylarinos (1659–1718) from Cephalonia practised smallpox inoculation at Constantinople in the beginning of 18th century[33] and published their work in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1714.[34][35] This kind of inoculation and other forms of variolation were introduced into England by Lady Montagu, a famous English letter-writer and wife of the English ambassador at Istanbul between 1716 and 1718, who almost died from smallpox as a young adult and was physically scarred from it. Inoculation was adopted both in England and in America nearly half a century before Jenner's famous smallpox vaccine of 1796

[Source]

So, inoculation was in use in the UK well before Jenner writing about it. Roll Eyes

Then how do you explain the Boongs catching a Muslim disease? Tell me that.

Variola. The dried scabs of a Smallpox sufferer. The First Fleet carried a supply of them. This remained viable long after they had been removed from the sufferer. It was not Muslims which brought it to Australia but the First Fleeters. Roll Eyes

So you admit it was a Muslim disease.

We've got him, FD.

See highlighted sentence, please. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2343 - Feb 26^th, 2018 at 9:45am

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 10:31pm:

You said you blamed Europeans for European diseases and Arabs for Arab diseases. That you deny the existence of races does not mean you were not the first to mention them.

FD: I say you were the first to mention race. The fact that you didn't, does not mean you were not the first to mention them.

Europeans = race because... err FD says so.

Quote:

Why would you do this Gandalf? Do you often respond to accusations of racism by agreeing that you are blaming races for diseases?

I did not agree to any notion that we were talking about race. That I acknowledged that you insist its all about race and wacism doesn't make it so. How difficult is this for you to comprehend?

Quote:

How do you know the diseases came from Europe?

How do I know smallpox, common cold, measles etc that were spread by Europeans when they came raping and pillaging in the New World came from Europe? Hmmm.. call it an educated guess. Though I suppose its possible they stopped off at some ghastly muslim hell hole en-route and picked up the diseases there. Does that seem likely to you? Perhaps it was the sinister muslim toll collector at the bosphorus - not only did he demand a toll for passing, he gave them ghastly diseases too.

Quote:

Can you give some examples of Arab diseases that you blame Arabs for?

Sure FD, we've got the entire Congo Free State disaster. Historians would argue that the millions who died then died because of the raping and pillaging of the land by the Belgian invaders. But thanks to you, we know the truth - it was really arab diseases (and a bit of drought), and the Belgians, so misunderstood, were actually there as knights in shining armour to cure the diseases.

No I'm not making the last bit up - FD literally said that Grin

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2344 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:37pm

So Brian, tell us about getting 9 year old girls to consent to sex with a 50+ year old man.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

Neither did Mohammed, Augie. He married her first. She was apparently accepting of his advances. His marriage was no different to the numerous other dynastic ones which occurred in Arabia and Europe and Asia at the time. Tsk, tsk, always remember what L.P.Hartley said. Roll Eyes

So it's not rape if other people did it?

It isn't "rape" if the female consents, FD. Tsk, tsk, it is amazing how you don't understand what L.P.Hartley said when he stated, "the past is a different country, they do things differently there." The past was where different mores held. I don't hear you condemning the numerous European Christian dynastic marriages which occurred. I don't hear you condemning the numerous Indian dynastic (arranged) marriages which occur. I don't hear you condemning the numerous Chinese dynastic marriages which occur. Why? Why only attack one which occurred 1400 years ago, FD? Does it make you feel better? Of course it does, 'cause you're an Islamophobe. right? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Oh, and stop misquoting me. Roll Eyes

Of course they do things differently there. Like raping 9 year old girls and calling it an eternal moral example for all mankind to follow. Slaughtering Jews. Destroying civilisation. Creating a religious empire on the back of sex slavery and violence.

That doesn't make it not rape.

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. Roll Eyes

He had sex with a 9 year old girl Brian.

He even later document his beating of this girl for leaving the house without his permission as part of his 'eternal moral example for all mankind to follow'.

Gandalf insists he beat her because he loved her.

Did she refuse his advances, FD? Do you have evidence that this was a case of rape? YES/NO

If you don't, then piss off. All you're doing is applying 21st century morality to the era of 700 CE.

As I have pointed out, you ignore the Christian dynastic marriages where the spouse was of a young age. You ignore the Hindu dynastic marriages, the Chinese dynastic marriages. Why? Are they too embarrassing for you to admit to? I wonder why? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2345 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 5:55am

Apparently Aussie was talking about Muslims, not Arabs, this whole time. And somehow everyone knows exactly what he means, despite not actually speaking English.

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:02pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 8:55pm:

It is as far as I am concerned. It is surrounded by Arabs and water.

If you look at the history of the region as far back as we can go, it's not Arab. I thought you were a stickler for details.

Again, I don't care about that stuff. A Jewish State surrounded by Arabs....what do you expect? Peace in our times?

I think you are confusing Islamic with Arabic. Are Lebanese Arabs? Are Turks? Are Egyptians? Are Iranians?

Yes as far as per my basic point, and as far as I am concerned. The State of Israel was artificially created late 1940s and plonked right into the Land of Arabs.

You can call them Islamists if you want. I call them 'Arabs.' Same same for the purposes of my point...and I will never waver from it. Get over it, and suck it up buttercup.

One of my long term mates...a retired Copper....is a Christian Lebanese, and he loves his nick name...the 'Black Arab.'

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:33pm:

Stupid and useless pedantry. I doubt there is anyone here who does not get my point.

The State of Israel was artificially created and plonked into the Land of Arabs. Simple as that. Deal with it. Get over it and move on. What was the expression?

Was it this one ~ Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Yes, that's the one.

Aussie wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:

You use your word, I'll use mine, and nothing will change that.

Get over it, move on and:

Quote:

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2346 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 6:46am

Brian whined for many pages when I accused him of believing that "we" have no right or even ability to criticise Islam. Turns out I was actually right.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

Brian is it possible to conduct a reasoned analysis of the very real, earthly consequences of people's faith-based beliefs? Or is that only possible if you have the right and ability to criticise other religions?

You have thus failed to show you have an understanding of Islam, Freediver, therefore I do not think you have the right or the ability to criticise it. When you realise just how ignorant you are, we might be able to have a discussion. Until then, all you're doing is showing your Islamophobia. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes.

He is yet to give a single example of someone who does have this right or ability.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2347 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 8:13pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Why quote only half the verse, FD?

According to this website the whole verse is:
"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

Seems to me you are selectively quoting. Tsk, tsk. How typical of an Islamophobe. Hey?

Quote:

https://quran.com/2/190-196
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah .

190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

195 And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

196 And complete the Hajj and 'umrah for Allah . But if you are prevented, then [offer] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached its place of slaughter. And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making shaving necessary must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice. And when you are secure, then whoever performs 'umrah [during the Hajj months] followed by Hajj [offers] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And whoever cannot find [or afford such an animal] - then a fast of three days during Hajj and of seven when you have returned [home]. Those are ten complete [days]. This is for those whose family is not in the area of al-Masjid al-Haram. And fear Allah and know that Allah is severe in penalty.

Appears to be OK to me, FD. A general instruction to fight those that do harm to Muslims. Interesting that yet again you misquote and do not provide the whole quote. Tsk, tsk.

So a verse telling Muslims to use violence to convert people to Islam by the sword is 'OK', so long as you give them plenty of additional reasons to use violence?

But you do manage to find a problem with two verses from the NT that do not instruct Christians to use violence?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39572

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2348 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 9:48pm

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Why quote only half the verse, FD?

According to this website the whole verse is:
"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

Seems to me you are selectively quoting. Tsk, tsk. How typical of an Islamophobe. Hey?

Quote:

https://quran.com/2/190-196
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah .

190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

195 And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

196 And complete the Hajj and 'umrah for Allah . But if you are prevented, then [offer] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached its place of slaughter. And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making shaving necessary must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice. And when you are secure, then whoever performs 'umrah [during the Hajj months] followed by Hajj [offers] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And whoever cannot find [or afford such an animal] - then a fast of three days during Hajj and of seven when you have returned [home]. Those are ten complete [days]. This is for those whose family is not in the area of al-Masjid al-Haram. And fear Allah and know that Allah is severe in penalty.

Appears to be OK to me, FD. A general instruction to fight those that do harm to Muslims. Interesting that yet again you misquote and do not provide the whole quote. Tsk, tsk.

So a verse telling Muslims to use violence to convert people to Islam by the sword is 'OK', so long as you give them plenty of additional reasons to use violence?

But you do manage to find a problem with two verses from the NT that do not instruct Christians to use violence?

And what happens when they cease attacking the Muslims, FD? Mmm? Oh, dear, appears that Muslims are instructed to apply mercy. Funny that, hey? Surely, they'd be like the Spanish in the New World and just kill them all? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2349 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 10:04pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 9:48pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Why quote only half the verse, FD?

According to this website the whole verse is:
"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."

Seems to me you are selectively quoting. Tsk, tsk. How typical of an Islamophobe. Hey?

Quote:

https://quran.com/2/190-196
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah .

190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

195 And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

196 And complete the Hajj and 'umrah for Allah . But if you are prevented, then [offer] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And do not shave your heads until the sacrificial animal has reached its place of slaughter. And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making shaving necessary must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice. And when you are secure, then whoever performs 'umrah [during the Hajj months] followed by Hajj [offers] what can be obtained with ease of sacrificial animals. And whoever cannot find [or afford such an animal] - then a fast of three days during Hajj and of seven when you have returned [home]. Those are ten complete [days]. This is for those whose family is not in the area of al-Masjid al-Haram. And fear Allah and know that Allah is severe in penalty.

Appears to be OK to me, FD. A general instruction to fight those that do harm to Muslims. Interesting that yet again you misquote and do not provide the whole quote. Tsk, tsk.

So a verse telling Muslims to use violence to convert people to Islam by the sword is 'OK', so long as you give them plenty of additional reasons to use violence?

But you do manage to find a problem with two verses from the NT that do not instruct Christians to use violence?

And what happens when they cease attacking the Muslims, FD? Mmm? Oh, dear, appears that Muslims are instructed to apply mercy. Funny that, hey? Surely, they'd be like the Spanish in the New World and just kill them all? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Read what it says Brian. It is in English after all, so you can no longer argue that it is some unfathomable mystery because it is written in Arabic. It says to fight them until Islam is the only religion.

Just in case you are extra dedicated to self delusion, here is the other verse, which you declined to comment on, and the preceding one, and the ones after it promising spoils of war:

http://www.clearquran.com/008.html

34. Yet why should God not punish them, when they are turning others away from the Sacred Mosque, although they are not its custodians? Its rightful custodians are the pious; but most of them do not know.

35. Their prayer at the House was nothing but whistling and clapping—so taste the punishment for your blasphemy.

36. Those who disbelieve spend their wealth to repel from God’s path. They will spend it, then it will become a source of sorrow for them, and then they will be defeated. Those who disbelieve will be herded into Hell.

37. That God may distinguish the bad from the good, and heap the bad on top of one another, and pile them together, and throw them in Hell. These are the losers.

38. Say to those who disbelieve: if they desist, their past will be forgiven. But if they persist—the practice of the ancients has passed away.

39. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God. But if they desist—God is Seeing of what they do.

40. And if they turn away, know that God is your Protector. The Best Protector, and the Best Supporter.

41. And know that whatever spoils you gain, to God belongs its fifth, and to the Messenger, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and to the wayfarer, provided you believe in God and in what We revealed to Our servant on the Day of Distinction, the day when the two armies met. God is Capable of everything.

Are you seriously telling us that both of these passages are "OK" by you, yet you still manage to find not one, but two passages from the new testament that are not?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 5^th, 2018 at 10:09pm by freediver »

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 92349 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2350 - Mar 5^th, 2018 at 11:28pm Thanks for bringing Sore End and Hot Breasts back, FD. Those were the days, eh?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2351 - Mar 7^th, 2018 at 12:12pm

There are a lot of people in Brian's head who apparently agree with him. Like all those Christian terrorists who often cite Luke to justify terrorism, and people who, unlike Brian, have the right or even the ability to criticise Islam.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 2:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

Brian is it possible to conduct a reasoned analysis of the very real, earthly consequences of people's faith-based beliefs? Or is that only possible if you have the right and ability to criticise other religions?

You have thus failed to show you have an understanding of Islam, Freediver, therefore I do not think you have the right or the ability to criticise it. When you realise just how ignorant you are, we might be able to have a discussion. Until then, all you're doing is showing your Islamophobia. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes.

Were they real, or a figment of your imagination, like those Christian terrorists who 'often' cite the book of Luke to justify terrorism?

More questions with question, hey? Tsk tsk, FD. Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Roll Eyes

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2352 - Mar 10^th, 2018 at 7:38pm

Brian proving he really can see the difference:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 5:06pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 5:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

I am not suggesting that you don't. However, why is the belief of Christians about Christ existing and being the son of God acceptable but the Muslim's beliefs about Mohammad not acceptable?

Both are based upon fairy tales and myths, as far as I am concerned. Both are as equally valid therefore. Why do people get upset when I question Christianity in the same way they are questioning Islam? Could it be because they are Christians and not Muslims? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Because Jesus set a splendid example and Mohammed a dreadful one. Imitate Jesus and you'll be saintly. Imitate Mohammed and you will be a pryapic war criminal and mass murderer.

I know you can't see the difference, Bwian, that's why everyone has such deep contempt for you and laugh at you.

Oh, I can see the difference. You believe in Christ. Muslims believe in Mohammad. Both are beliefs in a sky-fairy as far as I am concerned, Soren. I just don't want to believe anything about either of them. That appears to upset you. Where do I sign up to the worst believers' club? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47446
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2353 - Mar 28^th, 2018 at 9:48pm

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 10:57am:

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 10:27am:

Greg do you see any particular danger in handing a religious court the authority to hand out death sentences?

FD....I've just had a read of the Thread. That is a sneaky irrelevance.

It is the Government of Aceh which is making the Law, and it is for the Government's Courts to work within the Law, whether it is Sharia or otherwise.

Aussie went to to elaborate on why he could not possibly answer the question either:

Aussie wrote on Mar 28^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2018 at 8:52pm:

What's this about a spider Aussie?

Quote:

The Spider and the Fly

“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly, 'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy; The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to show when you are there.”

“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can never come down again.”

“I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high; Will you rest upon my little bed?” said the Spider to the Fly. “There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin, And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!”

“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “for I've often heard it said, They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!”

Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, “Dear friend what can I do, To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you? I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice; I'm sure you're very welcome — will you please to take a slice?”

“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!”

“Sweet creature!” said the Spider, “you're witty and you're wise, How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes! I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf, If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.”

“I thank you, gentle sir,” she said, “for what you're pleased to say, And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day.”

The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den, For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again: So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly: And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.

Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing, “Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing; Your robes are green and purple — there's a crest upon your head; Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!”

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;

With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew, Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing!

At last, Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast. He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den, Within his little parlour — but she ne'er came out again!

And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,

And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

~By Mary Howitt, 1829

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 46559 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2354 - Mar 28^th, 2018 at 10:07pm God rules Religion President rules Politics Emperor rules Military King rules Music Champion rules Sport Professor rules Science Doctor/Sir'geon rules Medicine Chef rules Cooking Mice rule Humans
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged