Travel0 min ago
Whipped For Loving..
religion of peace..mmm the face of islam you do not see on bbc, i wonder why..guess trump is more news worthy, considered a racist..but hey whats happening is ok though.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Ignorance and mockery from the usual quarters I see. (And since I started writing this post a believer in moral relativism: all cuktures and practices are qual.) Another normal crazy day on AB then. Aceh province is a part of "moderate" Indonesia which has adopted Sharia and its penal code the hadood. Whippings, stonings and amputations are not extreme,...
22:03 Wed 31st Jul 2019
What do you think of this, spath?
'François Bernier gave the following description:
"At Lahor I saw a most beautiful young widow sacrificed, who could not, I think, have been more than twelve years of age. The poor little creature appeared more dead than alive when she approached the dreadful pit: the agony of her mind cannot be described; she trembled and wept bitterly; but three or four of the Brahmens, assisted by an old woman who held her under the arm, forced the unwilling victim toward the fatal spot, seated her on the wood, tied her hands and feet, lest she should run away, and in that situation the innocent creature was burnt alive."[73]'
Their law, spath? Or were the British right to stop it. You can hardly claim the widows were breaking any laws, can you.
'François Bernier gave the following description:
"At Lahor I saw a most beautiful young widow sacrificed, who could not, I think, have been more than twelve years of age. The poor little creature appeared more dead than alive when she approached the dreadful pit: the agony of her mind cannot be described; she trembled and wept bitterly; but three or four of the Brahmens, assisted by an old woman who held her under the arm, forced the unwilling victim toward the fatal spot, seated her on the wood, tied her hands and feet, lest she should run away, and in that situation the innocent creature was burnt alive."[73]'
Their law, spath? Or were the British right to stop it. You can hardly claim the widows were breaking any laws, can you.
Naomi - // AH, you’re wrong. The reason Islam has never progressed is because it can’t. The word of Allah and his prophet is deemed unquestionable. //
Of course, you cannot possibly know that - but you never let that stop you posting your opinion as though it is a fact.
Darn, now I have to spend a sleepless night pondering the 'ethics' of letting such dogmatic ignorance stand and be read by those who don't know as much about Islam as you and I, or challenge it, so they know they can actually think about what you say, instead of accepting it as the truth, simply because you say it as though it is.
Of course, you cannot possibly know that - but you never let that stop you posting your opinion as though it is a fact.
Darn, now I have to spend a sleepless night pondering the 'ethics' of letting such dogmatic ignorance stand and be read by those who don't know as much about Islam as you and I, or challenge it, so they know they can actually think about what you say, instead of accepting it as the truth, simply because you say it as though it is.
Spicerack - // What do you think of this, spath?
'François Bernier gave the following description:
"At Lahor I saw a most beautiful young widow sacrificed, who could not, I think, have been more than twelve years of age. The poor little creature appeared more dead than alive when she approached the dreadful pit: the agony of her mind cannot be described; she trembled and wept bitterly; but three or four of the Brahmens, assisted by an old woman who held her under the arm, forced the unwilling victim toward the fatal spot, seated her on the wood, tied her hands and feet, lest she should run away, and in that situation the innocent creature was burnt alive."[73]'
Their law, spath? Or were the British right to stop it. You can hardly claim the widows were breaking any laws, can you. //
It's 'their way', so that makes it alright of us to take lots of no notice.
Come on, get with the programme!!!
'François Bernier gave the following description:
"At Lahor I saw a most beautiful young widow sacrificed, who could not, I think, have been more than twelve years of age. The poor little creature appeared more dead than alive when she approached the dreadful pit: the agony of her mind cannot be described; she trembled and wept bitterly; but three or four of the Brahmens, assisted by an old woman who held her under the arm, forced the unwilling victim toward the fatal spot, seated her on the wood, tied her hands and feet, lest she should run away, and in that situation the innocent creature was burnt alive."[73]'
Their law, spath? Or were the British right to stop it. You can hardly claim the widows were breaking any laws, can you. //
It's 'their way', so that makes it alright of us to take lots of no notice.
Come on, get with the programme!!!
What you're seeing, Naomi, is an egregious case of what our Roman Catholic friends call [i]"invincible ignorance".
As its name suggest you can't beat it, although, in context, the RCs meant it differently, perhaps from my usage, namely that some people by geography, or history, or whatever denied the opportunity[ to hear the Gospel, whereas what we're seeing here is the inability to see and assess evidence. That's why invincible ignorance is a venial rather than a mortal sin.
As its name suggest you can't beat it, although, in context, the RCs meant it differently, perhaps from my usage, namely that some people by geography, or history, or whatever denied the opportunity[ to hear the Gospel, whereas what we're seeing here is the inability to see and assess evidence. That's why invincible ignorance is a venial rather than a mortal sin.
naomi at 19:33, I have never, and never will, give a stuff about what ah says re. my views. God forbid I should ever be as pompous and arrogant as him !! Really don't know how you keep your temper sometimes naomi, you deserve a medal xx Daresay this post will be cut and pasted too and another load of diatribe added at the bottom of it (lol).
hereIam// naomi at 19:33, I have never, and never will, give a stuff about what ah says re. my views. God forbid I should ever be as pompous and arrogant as him !! Really don't know how you keep your temper sometimes naomi, you deserve a medal xx Daresay this post will be cut and pasted too and another load of diatribe added at the bottom of it (lol).//
Blah, blah, blah blah blah. You're not even important. Blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah blah blah. You're not even important. Blah, blah.
hereIam - // naomi at 19:33, I have never, and never will, give a stuff about what ah says re. my views. God forbid I should ever be as pompous and arrogant as him !! Really don't know how you keep your temper sometimes naomi, you deserve a medal xx Daresay this post will be cut and pasted too and another load of diatribe added at the bottom of it (lol). //
No, it won't have any diatribe, I wouldn't waste my time.
Back to the thread now?
No, it won't have any diatribe, I wouldn't waste my time.
Back to the thread now?
Naomi - // AH, yes ... I can possibly know that. //
OK, let's concede for the sake of argument that you are correct - Islam 'can't' move forward.
Does that make it different from any other major faith in the world?
Christianity has not fundamentally advanced since the Middle Ages - I see our priest at Mass dressed in robes which have not changed in design for about eight hundred years, and the only concession the Catholic church has made in that time is that he delivers the Mass facing the congregation, and in English.
Religions don't 'move forward' - any of them - so why single out Islam for criticism for doing, or rather not doing the same as the rest?
OK, let's concede for the sake of argument that you are correct - Islam 'can't' move forward.
Does that make it different from any other major faith in the world?
Christianity has not fundamentally advanced since the Middle Ages - I see our priest at Mass dressed in robes which have not changed in design for about eight hundred years, and the only concession the Catholic church has made in that time is that he delivers the Mass facing the congregation, and in English.
Religions don't 'move forward' - any of them - so why single out Islam for criticism for doing, or rather not doing the same as the rest?
andy, why single out Islam for criticism, as the title (whipped for loving) but lets consider other life threatening things, gays tossed off buildings, beheadings of hands heads either, sharia law, jihadists who believe they are doing allah's work, as written in the koran, im not sayong all muslims are extremists..the koran is.
fender - // andy, why single out Islam for criticism, as the title (whipped for loving) but lets consider other life threatening things, gays tossed off buildings, beheadings of hands heads either, sharia law, jihadists who believe they are doing allah's work, as written in the koran, im not sayong all muslims are extremists..the koran is. //
My last post was to Naomi, asking specifically why she believes (she does not 'know' despite her continuing deluded certainty that she does) that Islam cannot move forward.
That is the specific criticism to which I am seeking a response, so I am unwilling to be sidetracked down the well-worn path if Islamic extremist behaviour.
My last post was to Naomi, asking specifically why she believes (she does not 'know' despite her continuing deluded certainty that she does) that Islam cannot move forward.
That is the specific criticism to which I am seeking a response, so I am unwilling to be sidetracked down the well-worn path if Islamic extremist behaviour.
