non halal and syrian refugees

First topic message reminder :

Just found this bit of information as i think the Syrian refugees refusing food parcels from red cross charities is ungrateful .

"Allah tells us in the Qur'an that we may eat of the good food of Christians and Jews. Therefore, unless there is a specific reason for the prohibition of a particular type of food prepared by such people, it is permissible to eat it.

So what's their problem ?

I agree Raggs

SM... if I remember rightly... you previously claimed the Koran was perfect in every way...?


While also arguing that Koran dictated punishments are wrong...!?



I think that is what smelly was getting at...!!!



Can you please clarify your position on this?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

You cant compare it to a marriage though

That's the point im making

The relationship is like that of a parent and child where a parent knows best.

@Didge
have you considered fear of disappointing the parent, thus fear and love are entwined.

@SM
treating religion like a parent is a mistake, it is a hallmark of indoctrination. Only that which is patently wrong would even try it.
Religion is like a marriage, it can be either the product of free choice or chosen and arranged by your parents.
Some religions are just like abusive partners. Any that lord it over, deny free will and choice are the exact same as an abusive relationship.
Most organized religions are just that.

Didge and Veya

I disagree vehemently

A relationship with God cannot be ever compared to a marriage. In marriage both partners are equal whereas in this one, one is superior and more knowledgeable hence why i used the example of a parent and child.

You(or any human) follow a Religion, the relationship to religion is like marriage. Only the relationship to the Religion is 'physical' and measurable. A relationship to god(s) is personal at best. people with varying definitions of god(s) and no god(s) have a complete and correct definition (one that can be measured and confirmed) so we can only go on 'the evidence for each suggested god' .

And there is no evidence for god(s) knowing more at all, in the case of Abrahamic god the exact opposite is true.
the few books that claim his superior knowledge, can be shown to be largely full of falsehoods. full of claims that are supposed to be the absolute truth but when measured are shown to be incorrect. Sources that can be shown to have fundamental flaws are of less value, this has to be accepted for any academic analysis of any subject.

God(s) may exist but the one defined like that certainly not

OR another way to look at if
IF that god was so good why did they not even know how the planets moved in relation to the sun?
Abrahamic god is inferior to any individual with knowledge of science because Abrahamic god made claims to facts that have been measured and the god's claims proven incorrect.
If Abrahamic god was a human child sitting in school he answered most of the questions wrong. Actually failed most subjects. and if we judge the morality of his action (based on the action in the Bible and Koran) he is severely lacking in morals, Hypocritical, unkind and unjust, vengeful and full of hate. Honestly I have known 10 year olds with more accurate knowledge of reality and better moral compass than the Abrahamic god possesses.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Everything about Islam is news to you

I remember when you were surprised to learn that the punishment for adultery was 100 lashes

You're not the best Muslim around after all

Oh for the love of God!

Are you serious?

I said 100 lashes was too brutal a punishment for Adultry!

Im a Muslim born and bred and you think you know more than me!

You really do make me chuckle

If course I know more than you.

You get told about Islam by your imam, I have had to learn about Islam on my own

Yours is hearsay,mine is knowledge

Would it surprise you to know that Allah agrees that Israel belongs to the Jews?? Says so right in the blood book.

Would it surprise you to know that 100 lashes for adultery is only one of the proscribed punishments for adultery??

There is so much I can reach you mama that your imam won't

Tommy Monk wrote:Come on dodge...98% sure!?


It was 97% a little while ago...!!!



Easy mistake to make... just like when you were telling us how many children you had...


I know numbers (or even facts) aren't your strong points!!!

Walter Mitty's facts are like those of the climate change nutters - ever changing

smelly-bandit wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Come on dodge...98% sure!?


It was 97% a little while ago...!!!



Easy mistake to make... just like when you were telling us how many children you had...


I know numbers (or even facts) aren't your strong points!!!

Walter Mitty's facts are like those of the climate change nutters - ever changing

So the Dutchman thinks countless scientists are now nutters lol

Again for the simpleminded

97 percent of scientists agree on man made claimate change

Of the 97 percent they are 98 percent sure based on the evidence of man made global warming

Doh

Stick to playing with your action man ha ha ha hga

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... if I remember rightly... you previously claimed the Koran was perfect in every way...?


While also arguing that Koran dictated punishments are wrong...!?



I think that is what smelly was getting at...!!!



Can you please clarify your position on this?

Tommy can I ask you a serious question?

Why do you use the LOL emoticon after every post?

Anyway me and Smelly have had this discussion from ADO days that punishments from the Quran can be evolutionsed as such.

Hope that clears it up.

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Oh for the love of God!

Are you serious?

I said 100 lashes was too brutal a punishment for Adultry!

Im a Muslim born and bred and you think you know more than me!

You really do make me chuckle

If course I know more than you.

You get told about Islam by your imam, I have had to learn about Islam on my own

Yours is hearsay,mine is knowledge

Would it surprise you to know that Allah agrees that Israel belongs to the Jews?? Says so right in the blood book.

Would it surprise you to know that 100 lashes for adultery is only one of the proscribed punishments for adultery??

There is so much I can reach you mama that your imam won't

LOLOLOL

Ok hears the thing you don't know.

I don't have an imam as such.

I believe in finding things out myself.

Knowledge is power.

Do you know Arabic? nope so you have no idea what is really translated hence why people like you make me laugh when you have the audacity to 'debate' with me on my religion.

Veya I will get back to your post when im free

catch you all later

SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

Quran as a book of guidance is perfect. Some parts are easy to understand, some require knowledge. It is a book for all levels of intelligence, even yours.

The Quran is not changing for anyone. A sin then is a sin now.

But times are changing and as far as laws are concerned, one must take into account the historical context and verify if the jurisprudence (look that up) still applies.

More bollocks!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:More bollocks!!!

What an intelligent reply! Lol!

Shut you up, didn't it.

No, just got bored by your waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:No, just got bored by your waffle...

I make great waffles.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

Quran as a book of guidance is perfect. Some parts are easy to understand, some require knowledge. It is a book for all levels of intelligence, even yours.

The Quran is not changing for anyone. A sin then is a sin now.

But times are changing and as far as laws are concerned, one must take into account the historical context and verify if the jurisprudence (look that up) still applies.

A perfect book doesn't have contradictions.

A perfect book would have been written in English - the world's most widely spoken language unless if course your perfect God failed to foresee that.

As far as jurisprudence is concerned, you have just contradicted yourself,if the Quran cannot change then can the jurisprudence.

Islamic law is based on doctrine derived from the sunnah ,hadith and Quranic dogma.

the Quran is believed to be the literal words of Allah spoken by Muhammad

The sunnah and hadith contains the literal actions and deeds of Allah carried out by Muhammad

Applying context to any of these would suggest that Allah is only relevant for that time and place

By extension anything that relevant only contextually would be rendered irrelevant outside that context

Are you really suggesting that parts of the Quran can be ignored as being irrelevant to today??

That's blasphemy as far as you lot are concerned

smelly-bandit wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Quran as a book of guidance is perfect. Some parts are easy to understand, some require knowledge. It is a book for all levels of intelligence, even yours.

The Quran is not changing for anyone. A sin then is a sin now.

But times are changing and as far as laws are concerned, one must take into account the historical context and verify if the jurisprudence (look that up) still applies.

A perfect book doesn't have contradictions.

A perfect book would have been written in English - the world's most widely spoken language unless if course your perfect God failed to foresee that.

As far as jurisprudence is concerned, you have just contradicted yourself,if the Quran cannot change then can the jurisprudence.

Islamic law is based on doctrine derived from the sunnah ,hadith and Quranic dogma.

the Quran is believed to be the literal words of Allah spoken by Muhammad

The sunnah and hadith contains the literal actions and deeds of Allah carried out by Muhammad

Applying context to any of these would suggest that Allah is only relevant for that time and place

By extension anything that relevant only contextually would be rendered irrelevant outside that context

Are you really suggesting that parts of the Quran can be ignored as being irrelevant to today??

That's blasphemy as far as you lot are concerned

No, I said the jurisprudence will always apply. But should be applied in today's context, if possible.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

A perfect book doesn't have contradictions.

A perfect book would have been written in English - the world's most widely spoken language unless if course your perfect God failed to foresee that.

As far as jurisprudence is concerned, you have just contradicted yourself,if the Quran cannot change then can the jurisprudence.

Islamic law is based on doctrine derived from the sunnah ,hadith and Quranic dogma.

the Quran is believed to be the literal words of Allah spoken by Muhammad

The sunnah and hadith contains the literal actions and deeds of Allah carried out by Muhammad

Applying context to any of these would suggest that Allah is only relevant for that time and place

By extension anything that relevant only contextually would be rendered irrelevant outside that context

Are you really suggesting that parts of the Quran can be ignored as being irrelevant to today??

That's blasphemy as far as you lot are concerned

No, I said the jurisprudence will always apply. But should be applied in today's context, if possible.

Meaning what??

Adultery should be considered a sin but not punished with 100 lashes or stoning but rather a stern scolding or something more befitting modern reality??

@ smelly

I like your previous post...  I agree they are all open and shut refutation of the concept of the Abrahamic god.

Except for the English part, as that is only for a time and place too.
the perfect book would be in pictures and/or numbers because they can be understood by even more people.


In defense of Zack's position
the jurisprudence can be in the 'interpretation of the text', even if the text doesn't change people can interpretation it differently and it has changed in interpretation several times through out history.

veya_victaous wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:


Didge and Veya

I disagree vehemently

A relationship with God cannot be ever compared to a marriage. In marriage both partners are equal whereas in this one, one is superior and more knowledgeable hence why i used the example of a parent and child.

You(or any human) follow a Religion, the relationship to religion is like marriage. Only the relationship to the Religion is 'physical' and measurable. A relationship to god(s) is personal at best. people with varying definitions of god(s) and no god(s) have a complete and correct definition (one that can be measured and confirmed) so we can only go on 'the evidence for each suggested god' .  

And there is no evidence for god(s) knowing more at all, in the case of Abrahamic god the exact opposite is true.
the few books that claim his superior knowledge, can be shown to be largely full of falsehoods. full of claims that are supposed to be the absolute truth but when measured are shown to be incorrect. Sources that can be shown to have fundamental flaws are of less value, this has to be accepted for any academic analysis of any subject.

God(s) may exist but the one defined like that certainly not

OR another way to look at if
IF that god was so good why did they not even know how the planets moved in relation to the sun?
Abrahamic god is inferior to any individual with knowledge of science because Abrahamic god made claims to facts that have been measured and the god's claims proven incorrect.
If Abrahamic god was a human child sitting in school he answered most of the questions wrong. Actually failed most subjects. and if we judge the morality of his action (based on the action in the Bible and Koran) he is severely lacking in morals, Hypocritical, unkind and unjust, vengeful and full of hate. Honestly I have known 10 year olds with more accurate knowledge of reality and better moral compass than the Abrahamic god possesses.

As I said earlier the relationship with God is NOT an equal one. How can it be? its not on equal terms at all.

You being an Atheist is pointless arguing about this with you.

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

When did I say it needs changing?

Learn to read properly Tommy!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

Quran as a book of guidance is perfect. Some parts are easy to understand, some require knowledge. It is a book for all levels of intelligence, even yours.

The Quran is not changing for anyone. A sin then is a sin now.

But times are changing and as far as laws are concerned, one must take into account the historical context and verify if the jurisprudence (look that up) still applies.

Exactly

smelly-bandit wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No, I said the jurisprudence will always apply. But should be applied in today's context, if possible.

Meaning what??

Adultery should be considered a sin but not punished with 100 lashes or stoning but rather a stern scolding or something more befitting modern reality??

Indeed

SEXY MAMA wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

You(or any human) follow a Religion, the relationship to religion is like marriage. Only the relationship to the Religion is 'physical' and measurable. A relationship to god(s) is personal at best. people with varying definitions of god(s) and no god(s) have a complete and correct definition (one that can be measured and confirmed) so we can only go on 'the evidence for each suggested god' .  

And there is no evidence for god(s) knowing more at all, in the case of Abrahamic god the exact opposite is true.
the few books that claim his superior knowledge, can be shown to be largely full of falsehoods. full of claims that are supposed to be the absolute truth but when measured are shown to be incorrect. Sources that can be shown to have fundamental flaws are of less value, this has to be accepted for any academic analysis of any subject.

God(s) may exist but the one defined like that certainly not

OR another way to look at if
IF that god was so good why did they not even know how the planets moved in relation to the sun?
Abrahamic god is inferior to any individual with knowledge of science because Abrahamic god made claims to facts that have been measured and the god's claims proven incorrect.
If Abrahamic god was a human child sitting in school he answered most of the questions wrong. Actually failed most subjects. and if we judge the morality of his action (based on the action in the Bible and Koran) he is severely lacking in morals, Hypocritical, unkind and unjust, vengeful and full of hate. Honestly I have known 10 year olds with more accurate knowledge of reality and better moral compass than the Abrahamic god possesses.

As I said earlier the relationship with God is NOT an equal one. How can it be? its not on equal terms at all.

You being an Atheist is pointless arguing about this with you.

Veya is not an athiest and that is a deflection to use.
I was once a believer as a Catholic.
The fact is there is no way such a deity is loving where it places conditions on love and that condition is a fear of eternal punishment.
If we as people create love, for parents do by creating children, then to do the same with punishments such as torture, we would lock them up for life.
Its also illogical for such a supreme being to be swayed by emoitions.

Cuchulain wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

As I said earlier the relationship with God is NOT an equal one. How can it be? its not on equal terms at all.

You being an Atheist is pointless arguing about this with you.

Veya is not an athiest and that is a deflection to use.
I was once a believer as a Catholic.
The fact is there is no way such a deity is loving where it places conditions on love and that condition is a fear of eternal punishment.
If we as people create love, for parents do by creating children, then to do the same with punishments such as torture, we would lock them up for life.
Its also illogical for such a supreme being to be swayed by emoitions.

You really don't understand this do you?

This is why I said the relationship isn't a marriage one. Marriage is on equal terms.

This relationship isn't.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Veya is not an athiest and that is a deflection to use.
I was once a believer as a Catholic.
The fact is there is no way such a deity is loving where it places conditions on love and that condition is a fear of eternal punishment.
If we as people create love, for parents do by creating children, then to do the same with punishments such as torture, we would lock them up for life.
Its also illogical for such a supreme being to be swayed by emoitions.

You really don't understand this do you?

This is why I said the relationship isn't a marriage one. Marriage is on equal terms.

This relationship isn't.

I understand it very well

Its a one sided relationship that if you do not love something you will face eternal punishment.
Now you tell me, would you stand by where a female was in a relationship facing such punishment?
Would you call that love?
I would not in any shape or form.
To create something we do so out of love, not with a view that if we are not obeyed we then strike vengence upon our creation.
We create children, so place that in context to this relationship.
If such a deity exists to me, it is not what I would call love, as love is unconditional.

Cuchulain wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

You really don't understand this do you?

This is why I said the relationship isn't a marriage one. Marriage is on equal terms.

This relationship isn't.

I understand it very well

Its a one sided relationship that if you do not love something you will face eternal punishment.
Now you tell me, would you stand by where a female was in a relationship facing such punishment?
Would you call that love?
I would not in any shape or form.
To create something we do so out of love, not with a view that if we are not obeyed we then strike vengence upon our creation.
We create children, so place that in context to this relationship.
If such a deity exists to me, it is not what I would call love, as love is unconditional.

No you clearly don't.

You cannot grasp that the relationship with God is not like any human relationship and comparing that to any human one is your first mistake on this.

Is HIS love conditional? Of course it is.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I understand it very well

Its a one sided relationship that if you do not love something you will face eternal punishment.
Now you tell me, would you stand by where a female was in a relationship facing such punishment?
Would you call that love?
I would not in any shape or form.
To create something we do so out of love, not with a view that if we are not obeyed we then strike vengence upon our creation.
We create children, so place that in context to this relationship.
If such a deity exists to me, it is not what I would call love, as love is unconditional.

No you clearly don't.

You cannot grasp that the relationship with God is not like any human relationship and comparing that to any human one is your first mistake on this.

Is HIS love conditional? Of course it is.

Well I have to class that such a deity is not worth loving as that love is based on fear.
How can anyone love something that uses fear to then have love.
You have to base this on how any of us would feel.
To say that the relationship is different, yes I understand its different, its barbaric, as nobody should be forced into love, as that is not love at all. Again love is unconditional and should be freely given. When conditions are placed on this love, they its not love at all, but fear.
So to claim such a deity is all loving holds no validity, as love should be freely give and not coerced through a threat of violence

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Meaning what??

Adultery should be considered a sin but not punished with 100 lashes or stoning but rather a stern scolding or something more befitting modern reality??

Indeed

Well mama to be fair

Inwas saying something similar many years ago and you were shrieking about how perfect Islam was and didn't need to modernise.

Then kat?? Showed you the results if 100 lashes and suddenly you were all like "let's modernise Islam and make it more relevant"

At which point fuzzmuck started swearing at you,and you guys had that embarrassing lovers spat.

Now funny ole thing even fuzzmuck is calling for reformation.

Looks like the three can finally agree on something.

Cuchulain wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

No you clearly don't.

You cannot grasp that the relationship with God is not like any human relationship and comparing that to any human one is your first mistake on this.

Is HIS love conditional? Of course it is.

Well I have to class that such a deity is not worth loving as that love is based on fear.
How can anyone love something that uses fear to then have love.
You have to base this on how any of us would feel.
To say that the relationship is different, yes I understand its different, its barbaric, as nobody should be forced into love, as that is not love at all. Again love is unconditional and should be freely given. When conditions are placed on this love, they its not love at all, but fear.
So to claim such a deity is all loving holds no validity, as love should be freely give and not coerced through a threat of violence

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion. I would just like to add that when a parent tells his child off or explains the danger of a situation it isn't barbaric as such is it?

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Indeed

Well mama to be fair

Inwas saying something similar many years ago and you were shrieking about how perfect Islam was and didn't need to modernise.

Then kat?? Showed you the results if 100 lashes and suddenly you were all like "let's modernise Islam and make it more relevant"

At which point fuzzmuck started swearing at you,and you guys had that embarrassing lovers spat.

Now funny ole thing even fuzzmuck is calling for reformation.

Looks like the three can finally agree on something.

Erm Smelly what the hell are you on about?

The fight me and Zack had, had nothing to do with the above!

FYI Islam is perfect and I have said for the punishments to be evolved nothing else.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well I have to class that such a deity is not worth loving as that love is based on fear.
How can anyone love something that uses fear to then have love.
You have to base this on how any of us would feel.
To say that the relationship is different, yes I understand its different, its barbaric, as nobody should be forced into love, as that is not love at all. Again love is unconditional and should be freely given. When conditions are placed on this love, they its not love at all, but fear.
So to claim such a deity is all loving holds no validity, as love should be freely give and not coerced through a threat of violence

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion. I would just like to add that when a parent tells his child off or explains the danger of a situation it isn't barbaric as such is it?

Sorry you need to compare warning a child of danger to then that parent committing torture to the child if they did not heed what they warned about. That is what is the comparrison. In the religious works the deity warns there will be reprecussions of the most appalling and eternal punishments. Yet as parents we warn a child they will lose privileges in many cases, not phsyically harm them for ever. That is why when you look at humans they have a greater ability for compassion that these Abrahamic deities do.

Cuchulain wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion. I would just like to add that when a parent tells his child off or explains the danger of a situation it isn't barbaric as such is it?

Sorry you need to compare a warning a child of danger to then that parent committing torture to the child if they did not heed what they warned about. That is what is the comparrison. In the religious works the deity warns there will be reprecussions of the most appalling and eternal punishments. Yet as parents we warn a child they will lose privileges in many cases, not phsyically harm them for ever. That is why when you look at humans they have a greater ability for compassion that these Abrahamic deities do.

I don't believe its torture. I believe its discipline. As I said you are looking at this in human terms when it clearly isn't.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Sorry you need to compare a warning a child of danger to then that parent committing torture to the child if they did not heed what they warned about. That is what is the comparrison. In the religious works the deity warns there will be reprecussions of the most appalling and eternal punishments. Yet as parents we warn a child they will lose privileges in many cases, not phsyically harm them for ever. That is why when you look at humans they have a greater ability for compassion that these Abrahamic deities do.

I don't believe its torture. I believe its discipline. As I said you are looking at this in human terms when it clearly isn't.

Come on Sexy, eternal Discipline?
I am glad I do look at it it terms of compassion, because to me to make people suffer for just not believeing is appalling to me.
I mean think about it? For hundreds of thousands of years nobody even knew of this deity, he then comes along maybe 5,000 years ago to area mainly in the Middle East over certain periods of time, not anywhere else in the world. Tells people to follow this message and elevates thekm above others. Which later forms the bases for racism espcially in Christian societies. When you look further, none of it really makes sense except to if you place yourself in the minds of people who wrote these works and how they did not understand many things we do today.
To me there are the work of men and if religion have been created by woemn, its is doubtful there would be as much violence from religions.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I understand it very well

Its a one sided relationship that if you do not love something you will face eternal punishment.
Now you tell me, would you stand by where a female was in a relationship facing such punishment?
Would you call that love?
I would not in any shape or form.
To create something we do so out of love, not with a view that if we are not obeyed we then strike vengence upon our creation.
We create children, so place that in context to this relationship.
If such a deity exists to me, it is not what I would call love, as love is unconditional.

No you clearly don't.

You cannot grasp that the relationship with God is not like any human relationship and comparing that to any human one is your first mistake on this.

Is HIS love conditional? Of course it is.

It's his arrogance, sweety.

You know what they say about the stiff necked. ;-)

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

No you clearly don't.

You cannot grasp that the relationship with God is not like any human relationship and comparing that to any human one is your first mistake on this.

Is HIS love conditional? Of course it is.

It's his arrogance, sweety.

You know what they say about the stiff necked. ;-)

No she has faith and strong faith at that, where she does not shy away from challenging questions.
Where as all you do is jump in making immature points about posters.
I respect she rises to the challenge when confronted with views on her faith where as you just mock and deflect in order to get out of the debate. It just proves you lack faith, where she has faith in abundance.
I may not respect the faith, but I certainly respect her as a person.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well I have to class that such a deity is not worth loving as that love is based on fear.
How can anyone love something that uses fear to then have love.
You have to base this on how any of us would feel.
To say that the relationship is different, yes I understand its different, its barbaric, as nobody should be forced into love, as that is not love at all. Again love is unconditional and should be freely given. When conditions are placed on this love, they its not love at all, but fear.
So to claim such a deity is all loving holds no validity, as love should be freely give and not coerced through a threat of violence

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion. I would just like to add that when a parent tells his child off or explains the danger of a situation it isn't barbaric as such is it?

Lol! Exactly.

You hear the same BS about a vengeful God but are parents vengeful when they punish a child? Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion. I would just like to add that when a parent tells his child off or explains the danger of a situation it isn't barbaric as such is it?

Lol! Exactly.

You hear the same BS about a vengeful God but are parents vengeful when they punish a child? Lol!

And yet unlike Sexy who can respond to points, you act with a mental age of a 2 year old when replying
Take up the points, if not it shows you are gutless.
Either way I am happy

Cuchulain wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

I don't believe its torture. I believe its discipline. As I said you are looking at this in human terms when it clearly isn't.

Come on Sexy, eternal Discipline?
I am glad I do look at it it terms of compassion, because to me to make people suffer for just not believeing is appalling to me.
I mean think about it? For hundreds of thousands of years nobody even knew of this deity, he then comes along maybe 5,000 years ago to area mainly in the Middle East over certain periods of time, not anywhere else in the world. Tells people to follow this message and elevates thekm above others. Which later forms the bases for racism espcially in Christian societies. When you look further, none of it really makes sense except to if you place yourself in the minds of people who wrote these works and how they did not understand many things we do today.
To me there are the work of men and if religion have been created by woemn, its is doubtful there would be as much violence from religions.

Well Didge there are only so many times God can tell you something isn't right! HE does warn people again and again and then they are punished!

In regards to Woman ruling the world one such quote sums it perfectly If women ruled the world half the countries wouldn't talk to each other lololol

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Come on Sexy, eternal Discipline?
I am glad I do look at it it terms of compassion, because to me to make people suffer for just not believeing is appalling to me.
I mean think about it? For hundreds of thousands of years nobody even knew of this deity, he then comes along maybe 5,000 years ago to area mainly in the Middle East over certain periods of time, not anywhere else in the world. Tells people to follow this message and elevates thekm above others. Which later forms the bases for racism espcially in Christian societies. When you look further, none of it really makes sense except to if you place yourself in the minds of people who wrote these works and how they did not understand many things we do today.
To me there are the work of men and if religion have been created by woemn, its is doubtful there would be as much violence from religions.

Well Didge there are only so many times God can tell you something isn't right! HE does warn people again and again and then they are punished!

In regards to Woman ruling  the world one such quote sums it perfectly  If women ruled the world half the countries wouldn't talk to each other lololol

Yes but we warn children, we do not then enact the worst violence on them as discipline, in fact if such a parent did, it would be child abuse.
Its like I said how can humans show more comapssion to something that claims to be the most compassionate?
Not ruled lol, if they had written religion, I expect it would have been far less violent and revengeful, with more a view on love.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Well mama to be fair

Inwas saying something similar many years ago and you were shrieking about how perfect Islam was and didn't need to modernise.

Then kat?? Showed you the results if 100 lashes and suddenly you were all like "let's modernise Islam and make it more relevant"

At which point fuzzmuck started swearing at you,and you guys had that embarrassing lovers spat.

Now funny ole thing even fuzzmuck is calling for reformation.

Looks like the three can finally agree on something.

Erm Smelly what the hell are you on about?

The fight me and Zack had, had nothing to do with the above!

FYI Islam is perfect and I have said for the punishments to be evolved nothing else.

Why do the punishments need to evolve if Islam is perfect??

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:SM... you can't be saying both that the Koran is perfect in every way as well as saying it needs changing!!!???








Oh... and the answer to your question is ... because I can!!!

When did I say it needs changing?

Learn to read properly Tommy!

what did you mean then?

Tommy Monk wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

When did I say it needs changing?

Learn to read properly Tommy!

what did you mean then?

It doesn't need changing!

The punishment can and should have always been evolved.
The Imams should have done this and they didn't they just carried on!

To be fair, the bibles "rules" etc have evolved and no one seems to be saying that's hypocritical or questioning that!

Evolved in what way...?


In a way that means different to what is ordered...?


So you mean changed!

I'm pointing out that the rules of bible are hardly adhered to either, so why only pick on the Q'ran?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Evolved in what way...?


In a way that means different to what is ordered...?


So you mean changed!

No mean evolved!!!!!

And only in regards to punishment.

So... what do you mean by 'evolved' exactly...!?



Do you mean that it should change or not...!!!???







Simple question!!!



Why have you got such difficulty in giving a straight answer!?

Tommy Monk wrote:So... what do you mean by 'evolved' exactly...!?



Do you mean that it should change or not...!!!???







Simple question!!!



Why have you got such difficulty in giving a straight answer!?

I havent it seems you have difficulty understanding your own native language!

What does evolve mean?

What does change mean?

There are two different things.

Let me educate you

For instance

If i said the sin adultry shouldnt be a sin

That is change

Im saying the punishment should be in accordance to these times

That is evolved

Hope thats cleared it up