Daily Mail is reporting that A row has erupted over an atheist society at a top London University posting a cartoon sketch featuring the prophet Muhammad having a drink with Jesus on its Facebook page. A row has erupted over an atheist society at a top London University posting a cartoon sketch featuring the prophet Muhammad having a drink with Jesus on its Facebook page.
 |
A student Muslim group is demanding the ‘offensive’ image of Jesus and Mo having a drink at the bar, taken from an online satirical sketch, be removed from the social networking site.
The president of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society at the prestigious University College London (UCL), Robbie Yellon, has stepped down over the controversy.
Controversy: A student atheist group at the University of London (UCL) has sparked a row after posting a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad on its Facebook page. But the Society still refuses to take down the image – claiming its right to defend ‘freedom of expression’.
Secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies, Michael Paynter said: ‘Robbie stepped aside because he signed up as president to organize events and run a student society. ‘He did not appreciate the stress he would be under when dealing with a controversy like this, so he wanted to make way for someone else.’
CARTOON SPARKS AN ONLINE DEBATE
- Elias Skourletos: ’Jesus and Mohammed are just historic figures such as Churchill and Hitler and we have every right to express our opinions on them.’ (Comment on Atheist Society’s Facebook page).
- Martin Foreman: ’The right to offend is essential in a free society and must be defended.’ (Comment on Atheist Society’s Facebook page).
- Richard of York: ’The thought that saying nothing wont cause offence, offends me.’(Comment on Richard Dawkins website).
- Richard Dawkins: ‘This sums up the gentle inoffensiveness of Jesus & Mo. Inoffensive, that is, to all who aren’t out there eagerly scouting for offence opportunities.’ (Comment on Richard Dawkins website).
- Rational Conclusion: ‘You cannot put regulations on things that offend because offence is subjective. A person can be offended by damn near anything. If we went about putting a halt to things that people find offensive we’d have almost nothing left.’(Comment on Richard Dawkins website).
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association’s protest against the photo has been backed by UCL’s Union.
A UCL Union statement said: ‘The atheist society has agreed they will take more consideration when drawing up publicity for future events.
‘The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs.’
The image that started the controversy was taken from an online twice-weekly satirical comic strip, called Jesus and Mo, and has been running since 2005. The Association aims to continue its protest until the image is taken down – claiming it is offensive and has wider implications. The association’s national spokesperson, Adam Walker, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary. He said: ‘The principle is more important than who is being attacked – this time it is Muslims and Christians but in the future it could be atheists themselves.
‘There is no need to print these things other than to cause offence and history has told us that these things cause offence.’
He added: ‘I wouldn’t say we’re specifically pursuing UCL atheist society, it’s more about the broader principle.’
The row has prompted debate on the internet with prominent academic and author Richard Dawkins backing the atheist society.
A spokesman for UCL said: ‘A situation has arisen surrounding publication by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society on its Facebook page of a cartoon entitled “Jesus and Mo”, representing Jesus and Muhammad sitting in a pub.
‘A number of complaints about the cartoon have been received by UCLU from UCL students.
‘UCL believes that managing the conduct of student societies is primarily a matter for the UCL Union and not the university centrally.
‘We understand that the Union has asked the Society to take the cartoon down, and this request has been refused.’
This is not the first time a comic strip has caused large-scale controversy.
In 2005, cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked world-wide controversy. The newspaper claimed the publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.
But Danish Muslim organizations that objected to the depictions, describing them as Islamophobic or racist, responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten’s publication. Further examples of the cartoons were soon reprinted in newspapers in more than 50 other countries, further deepening the controversy. This led to Islamic protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.
Comments (46)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by JD , January 20, 2012
I might find one offensive; but, I am not about to do more than let the author know the fact and refuse to purchase it or things containing it. I am heartily offended by the Muslim trait of taking offense and then following up with violence. I am offended enough at their violence that I'm moved to follow up with violence of my own rather than roll over and submit to the low lives.
The following is simple enough even a Muslim could understand it.
1) Offense is not bad. It is part of free discourse. That's civilization.
2) Violence is bad. It is the barbarian's or child's recourse to not getting its own way.
{^_^}
The following is simple enough even a Muslim could understand it.
1) Offense is not bad. It is part of free discourse. That's civilization.
2) Violence is bad. It is the barbarian's or child's recourse to not getting its own way.
{^_^}
written by vbv , January 21, 2012
What is wrong in the cartoon? After all both Jesus and Muhamad were crazy,deluded nuts. They have indoctrinated a zillion other nuts to fly to their defense centuries after their demise to inflict physical pain on nonconformists and even murder them on the pretext of a phoney thing called "blasphemy". Day in and day out these nuts called christians and muslims offend others calling them offensive names such as "kaffirs,mushrikeens, pagans,heretics, polytheists,...etc". Do these nuts have the exclusive right to offend everyone not joining their hateclub , but will not stand others doing the same to them ? Others have the same right to criticise,ridicule and offend these monotheistic megalomaiacs of the desert of the west Asia just as they do. It is a fee world and you cannot claim the exclusive right to denigrate others. Others have rights too.
written by myth buster , January 21, 2012
I don't see why this would be offensive to Christians, though there are some factual errors in there: I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have blond hair, and His alcoholic drink of choice was wine, not beer. The Bible speaks positively of alcohol in moderation, and Jesus was willing to eat and drink with anyone who wanted to eat and drink with Him. Now I can understand why Muslims would be offended- they're convinced Mohammed wouldn't drink alcohol period- on this I will not comment.
written by duh_swami , January 22, 2012
Muslims hate a cartoon...That's because most of them have never visited Toonville...That's where Porky, Miss Piggy and the three little pigs live...No Muslim want's to hang around with pigs, so they reject Toonville, they call it dar a-harb, pigs are collectively known as kuffar, but sometimes they are called Jew...That's because Allah got upset with them once and turned some of them into pigs...I have never personally seen a Jewish pig, but I'm sure they exist somewhere...Is Porky Pig a Jew? I always though he was a Episcopalian...Cartoons are worse than the depiction of humans or animals in art, cartoon represent a race of impossible beings, living impossible lives in impossible places, and they are all kuffar...Unless they convert to Islam, they must be destroyed...Somehow I think Donald Duck would convert, but I could be wrong...next time I see him, I will ask about it...
written by Cerebrum123 , January 22, 2012
Jesus taught against violence of the kind you describe above. Christianity is not about hate it's about having a relationship with God ,and loving all other people as you love yourself. This love is even extended to enemies. These are the real teachings of Christianity. You get on here every so often and rage against Christianity and Islam ,but you still don't understand the point that you need to know what the teachings are rather than some individuals failings to live up to those teachings. None of those things you posted above are a result of Christian teaching ,but are in opposition to Christian teachings.
written by Machmoed , January 22, 2012
They are sitting there explaining to eachother how they managed to achieve what they achieved. In this very cartoon they were boosting about their death. Jesus is telling that he suffered for days before death and still many think i'm a God. Muhammad replied: I'm not not impressed Jesus, cause i suffered for months due to poison and i thought the fever was the heat of hell and still millions think i'm the seal of prophets. Then jesus asked Muhammad: do you think we can start this kind of bussiness here in the afterlife? Well said Muhammad, it could be, but there are no kafirs here, so if you start making them believe your story, then i could jump in an make them believe my story and i could have kafirs etc.
.................
Divine idea Jesus replied!
.................
Divine idea Jesus replied!
written by fineliving56 , January 22, 2012
Haha ...your story is a lot more believable then the ones that the religious people try to convince us with, in the their books .!!
written by vbv , January 24, 2012
Can you refute the fact that christian missioneries/evangelists go about debunking,denigrating other nonchristian religions/cults to convert their adherents to christianity? Can you deny that these christians preachers/missioneries ,etc are a smug and arrogant lot that they claim the exclusive right of representing the socalled "god" and all others who do not follow them are doomed to miserable "hell" in the socalled "hereafter"? Can you deny that these padres/priests/evangelists were part of those zealots who went about their spree of genocides in the american continents or forcibly converting the natives to christianity and destroying their indegenous cultures? Can you deny that these padres/evangelists were part of the pogroms that went about burning 'heretics' on stakes ? Can you deny that churches supported slavery of africans in the earler days before it became politically correct to oppose this evil practice? Can you deny that churches/mullahs (Bible and Quran) support discrimination against infidels/nonbelievers or those belonging to other religions and cults? It is always "it our way or nother way " propogated by these monotheistic zealots. That is the ethos of monotheism- exclusivity and arrogance.Why, even Bible and Quran condone and encourage slavery of the unbelievers/infidels/,etc?
You cannot shut your eyes to these and many more outrageous practices of the monotheistic cults of west Asia. Today these evil practices are condemned because of secular humanist values and democracy. Yet if religion is given any political space, you cannot imagine the havock it will cause on human existence!!
You cannot shut your eyes to these and many more outrageous practices of the monotheistic cults of west Asia. Today these evil practices are condemned because of secular humanist values and democracy. Yet if religion is given any political space, you cannot imagine the havock it will cause on human existence!!
written by gsw , January 24, 2012
@Offenses:
While I agree with you, I doubt that the average islamic/Arab cultural mentality would agree.
This is because it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with 'being offended' per ce. It has to do with kufirs who break shari'ah rules. Their rules say: No pictures, and: Our rules count, yours don't.
Ask any muslim what is more important, islamic law or civil law. They will tell you that Allah's laws supersede man-made laws every time.
If it was really about respect and offense it would be mutual, as in
"we are offended when we have to talk to a black cloth rather than a face."
"we don't want to leave our children in a room with masked strangers"
"we are offended when you insult women who choose to have babies without marriage"
Lots of things they say and do that are very offensive, but thats ok, because their rules permit them to insult and offend us, their rules matter.
So no, it is not a matter of offense, it is a matter of being willing to stand up for what you believe in - they are and we are not.
While I agree with you, I doubt that the average islamic/Arab cultural mentality would agree.
This is because it actually has nothing whatsoever to do with 'being offended' per ce. It has to do with kufirs who break shari'ah rules. Their rules say: No pictures, and: Our rules count, yours don't.
Ask any muslim what is more important, islamic law or civil law. They will tell you that Allah's laws supersede man-made laws every time.
If it was really about respect and offense it would be mutual, as in
"we are offended when we have to talk to a black cloth rather than a face."
"we don't want to leave our children in a room with masked strangers"
"we are offended when you insult women who choose to have babies without marriage"
Lots of things they say and do that are very offensive, but thats ok, because their rules permit them to insult and offend us, their rules matter.
So no, it is not a matter of offense, it is a matter of being willing to stand up for what you believe in - they are and we are not.
written by Cerebrum123 , January 24, 2012
I would like to take some time to answer your above questions. If someone who is a missionary goes around denigrating the beliefs of his target audience he's not going to get any converts. This is how a Christian is supposed to preach the Gospel 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have.But do this with gentleness and respect.
Those who do what you claim above are not following the Bible's teachings.
I don't know about their arrogance or smugness (this should not be a trait of someone following the teachings of Jesus Christ) ,but Jesus Himself taught that He was the only way to heaven. Also not everyone believes that hell is a place of physical torment ,but one of shame ,disgrace ,and a spiritual torment. Hell is just separation from God. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
The only instances that I can find of supposed Christians wiping out Native Americans (these didn't even mention any forced conversions) were politically motivated ,and not by the teachings of Christianity. I would however like a source for this accusation.
As for heretics being burnt at the stake ,again this is NOT due to Christian teachings ,but AGAINST them.
There may have been some Christians who supported slavery ,but it was Christians (especially at the beginning of the second Great Awakening. William Wilberforce became an abolitionist after becoming a Christian.) who lead the abolitionist movement. Once again though I would like to point to Christian teaching rather than fallible man's capability to live up to those teachings. Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek ,slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Slavery is NOT condoned in the Bible ( OT "slavery" was more indentured servitude ,and not slavery in the sense of African slavery in America and Europe).
What about the affect that evolution had on increasing racism? What about the atheist genocides from Germany ,to China, to the Soviet Union etc? What about eugenics? What about the abortion movement (headed by racist Margaret Sanger so that she could rid the world of "undesirables" mainly blacks ,but other minorities too)? What about Ota Benga(he was an Australian aborigines that was placed in a zoo as a "missing link") ? The difference between these two worldviews is that atheists were following their beliefs to their logical conclusions while the Christians were going against their own teachings.
Those who do what you claim above are not following the Bible's teachings.
I don't know about their arrogance or smugness (this should not be a trait of someone following the teachings of Jesus Christ) ,but Jesus Himself taught that He was the only way to heaven. Also not everyone believes that hell is a place of physical torment ,but one of shame ,disgrace ,and a spiritual torment. Hell is just separation from God. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
The only instances that I can find of supposed Christians wiping out Native Americans (these didn't even mention any forced conversions) were politically motivated ,and not by the teachings of Christianity. I would however like a source for this accusation.
As for heretics being burnt at the stake ,again this is NOT due to Christian teachings ,but AGAINST them.
There may have been some Christians who supported slavery ,but it was Christians (especially at the beginning of the second Great Awakening. William Wilberforce became an abolitionist after becoming a Christian.) who lead the abolitionist movement. Once again though I would like to point to Christian teaching rather than fallible man's capability to live up to those teachings. Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek ,slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Slavery is NOT condoned in the Bible ( OT "slavery" was more indentured servitude ,and not slavery in the sense of African slavery in America and Europe).
What about the affect that evolution had on increasing racism? What about the atheist genocides from Germany ,to China, to the Soviet Union etc? What about eugenics? What about the abortion movement (headed by racist Margaret Sanger so that she could rid the world of "undesirables" mainly blacks ,but other minorities too)? What about Ota Benga(he was an Australian aborigines that was placed in a zoo as a "missing link") ? The difference between these two worldviews is that atheists were following their beliefs to their logical conclusions while the Christians were going against their own teachings.
written by chilliwhack , January 25, 2012
seems to me that a perverted mohamadan moslim mind (and by definition all mohammadan moslim's mind IS perverted from rational thught) can not begin to grasp the priciple of open mindedness.
western lovey doveys rolling over, opening their all to the irrationality of mohamadans is nothing short of prostetuting the future of humanity to the rapist acts of barberian mahamadanism.
western lovey doveys rolling over, opening their all to the irrationality of mohamadans is nothing short of prostetuting the future of humanity to the rapist acts of barberian mahamadanism.
written by George of the jungle , January 25, 2012
No, Guy, he's hiding a bomb. And, as soon as he finishes his beer he'll get rid of the kuffar sitting next to him and get those 144 virgins, rivers of wine, cushions of green silk, and lots and lots of little pearly boys. That's Islams definition of 7th heaven.
written by fineliving56 , January 25, 2012
I read this funny joke someone posted on anther web sit … it made me laugh on the expense of Muhammad and his 72 virgins [ I know there no number 72 in Quran but it OK... I heard roomers that Allah does not mind one bit … when it comes to bosomy virgins, Allah's humor improves a lot.
" The negotiating between Muhammad and Allah on the number of virgins for Muslims men in the afterlife, went like this ….
100 … no ..no, ...50 … OK ..OK …90 …no …no … no ….60 …OK…You win 80 !!? …no … 70 !!? … no …72 !! …DEAL ….:)
funny?
" The negotiating between Muhammad and Allah on the number of virgins for Muslims men in the afterlife, went like this ….
100 … no ..no, ...50 … OK ..OK …90 …no …no … no ….60 …OK…You win 80 !!? …no … 70 !!? … no …72 !! …DEAL ….:)
funny?
written by duh_swami , January 26, 2012
Cerebrum...I don't know about their arrogance or smugness (this should not be a trait of someone following the teachings of Jesus Christ) ,
But it is the trait, isn't it? You are not immune...The cause of the mental disease is religious supremacist bigotry. It is a natural result of believing in scripture...The scripture is of course supreme, the role model Jesus or Mohammad is supreme, and the God YHVH or Allah is supreme...If you do not see your religion, and your participation in it as supreme, you are in the wrong religion...As a result of your supremacy, you cannot accept the ideas of others that conflict with yours...that's where the bigotry comes in...Jesus supposedly said, 'Judge not lest you be judged', but that's all RSB's do...From a position of divine supremacy they label others sinners, and question your sanity if you don't believe in fairy tales written in a book...Arrogance and smugness are the children of supremacy...The root cause is belief in scripture...
...
But it is the trait, isn't it? You are not immune...The cause of the mental disease is religious supremacist bigotry. It is a natural result of believing in scripture...The scripture is of course supreme, the role model Jesus or Mohammad is supreme, and the God YHVH or Allah is supreme...If you do not see your religion, and your participation in it as supreme, you are in the wrong religion...As a result of your supremacy, you cannot accept the ideas of others that conflict with yours...that's where the bigotry comes in...Jesus supposedly said, 'Judge not lest you be judged', but that's all RSB's do...From a position of divine supremacy they label others sinners, and question your sanity if you don't believe in fairy tales written in a book...Arrogance and smugness are the children of supremacy...The root cause is belief in scripture...
...
written by Mozlem , January 26, 2012
Mo could have got more virgins if stuck to original 50 prayers per day. Less prayers per day = less virgins.
AKI and Malman can pray 50-500 times and world will be a better place.
AKI and Malman can pray 50-500 times and world will be a better place.
written by Cerebrum123 , January 26, 2012
So like a skeptic not to use a verse in it's real context ,and to go and do that which you are so angry at others for doing (believing that you are right and the other person is wrong, that does seem to be your definition of bigotry isn't it?). The whole verse goes like this when in proper context. Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge or you too will be judged.2 For in the same way you judged others ,you will be judged ,and with the measure you use ,it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (I thought that this one last part of the context was perfect for you to read just now)
I use the Bible as the standard for righteous judgement ,and that is what people should be using for their judgement in all matters. If I were never to judge at all I would never be able to judge someone's character ,and could end up hanging with a very bad crowd. I could never judge anything in any way at all ,and would not be able to make any decisions. You do a lot of judging too. You judge all Muslims as monsters ,and that none of them can be trusted. Can't this be called bigoted? You also believe your views as superior to theirs. Isn't this supremacy? Therefor can't you be called a supremacist bigot? All people are technically religious in some way or another ,and since you are being bigoted towards others of specific religions that would qualify you as a religious supremacist bigot wouldn't it?
As for sins ,the Bible (the measure by which all people will be judged eventually) declares all to be sinners ,including those you are so angry with. Since all are sinners they are simply telling the truth ,and many are just trying to help ,but you have things in the Bible so twisted around with your "symbolism" that you can't see the very danger they are trying to warn you about. You can't even see the primary message of the Gospel. You think that your symbolism is superior to what the Bible actually says ,and in doing so reject the Bible itself. You claim that you are not against the Bible ,but you attack it every chance you get ,this either means that you are very confused ,or that you are lying when you say you are not against the Bible. Which is it?
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (I thought that this one last part of the context was perfect for you to read just now)
I use the Bible as the standard for righteous judgement ,and that is what people should be using for their judgement in all matters. If I were never to judge at all I would never be able to judge someone's character ,and could end up hanging with a very bad crowd. I could never judge anything in any way at all ,and would not be able to make any decisions. You do a lot of judging too. You judge all Muslims as monsters ,and that none of them can be trusted. Can't this be called bigoted? You also believe your views as superior to theirs. Isn't this supremacy? Therefor can't you be called a supremacist bigot? All people are technically religious in some way or another ,and since you are being bigoted towards others of specific religions that would qualify you as a religious supremacist bigot wouldn't it?
As for sins ,the Bible (the measure by which all people will be judged eventually) declares all to be sinners ,including those you are so angry with. Since all are sinners they are simply telling the truth ,and many are just trying to help ,but you have things in the Bible so twisted around with your "symbolism" that you can't see the very danger they are trying to warn you about. You can't even see the primary message of the Gospel. You think that your symbolism is superior to what the Bible actually says ,and in doing so reject the Bible itself. You claim that you are not against the Bible ,but you attack it every chance you get ,this either means that you are very confused ,or that you are lying when you say you are not against the Bible. Which is it?
written by duh_swami , January 26, 2012
Bible class is over Cerebrum, go peddle your wares to someone who needs them...if you can find anyone...
written by Machmoed , January 26, 2012
Cerebrum, it's not personal. It's just that many of us here do not believe in the book. It's a book and that's all there is. Some think it's a good inspirational book, some a divine/holy book, some a book of guidence and a some think it's a fairytale book. I believe it has a bit of everything except the divine/holy book. I am not against your teachings, but the basis you provide (God/Bible etc) and the persistence on it, almost shows you're trying to convince yourself. This is what it's about. Bible/Quran etc. or even God of religions etc. are no authority. That's all there is!
written by duh_swami , January 27, 2012
Cerebrum, it's not personal.
I don't think he is a bad person, but he is obviously a fanatic, and a supremacist bigot...who has a drive to be 100% right 100% of the time...He's like the missing uncle Reed who has an answer for everything, but not always a very good one...
I don't think he is a bad person, but he is obviously a fanatic, and a supremacist bigot...who has a drive to be 100% right 100% of the time...He's like the missing uncle Reed who has an answer for everything, but not always a very good one...
written by Cerebrum123 , January 27, 2012
It's not personal in your case ,but it's obviously personal in the cases of some of the others. Most of the time I'm not even trying to preach ,but to simply correct some of the misinformation (some of it's unintentional so I use the word misinformation) being spread quite regularly on this site. vbv for example is always going around and accusing Jews ,Christians ,and Muslims for ALL evil in the world ,and he does so most of the time with either blatant falsehoods or with certain things that don't even belong in the category he is trying to accuse. I am first and foremost for the truth on here. If I make a real mistake correct me ,I don't want to say anything that is incorrect (btw evolution is NOT a fact ,and can't be observed by science ,so saying that I am incorrect about evolution won't fly). Duh here has no argument so he resorts to personal attacks. He follows pretty much the same pattern as Reed ,and Malem. He can't defend his first position so he switches to another ,and when he runs out of indefensible positions he resorts to anger ,and name calling (all of the names he uses against me fit him equally well). When it comes to arguing against Islam he does a good job ,but he doesn't see that he uses the same tactics that make him so angry with Reed and Malem. After he's done spouting how bigoted I am he will just dismiss anything I post out of hand without actually reading it (which he does with most of my posts anyway).
@ Duh
I am not trying to hijack I-W I am trying to correct the misinformation being spread here quite regularly. Things kind of get out of control from there ,and the topic gets changed more and more.
Also I am not trying to be right 100% 100% of the time ,that is impossible for any human being. I am however trying to speak the truth in a world that is ever increasingly fighting against it. That's what this is about ,the truth. If you were really the open minded truth seeker you claim to be you wouldn't dismiss my posts so easily. Also your definition of tolerance is very skewed. It's not about believing that all viewpoints are equally valid (obviously not all worldviews are valid considering Islam) to your own ,it's about respecting the right of others to have their own viewpoint ,even when you know they are wrong or disagree with them.
I don't believe that I am any better than you are so how am I a supremacist? I believe that the Bible is the truth (of course you need to read it in the way it is meant to be read ,and Genesis is meant to be read as history) ,and that this has been proven(the internal and external evidence shows the Bible to be 100% in line with all of the evidence). Why is it that believing the Bible automatically makes someone a bigot? When God has done so much for me in my life why shouldn't I be fanatical in my duty to spread His truth to anyone who will listen? If the Bible's claims are true and that anyone who rejects Jesus will be rejected by Him ,then why shouldn't I try to spread the Gospel?
@ Duh
I am not trying to hijack I-W I am trying to correct the misinformation being spread here quite regularly. Things kind of get out of control from there ,and the topic gets changed more and more.
Also I am not trying to be right 100% 100% of the time ,that is impossible for any human being. I am however trying to speak the truth in a world that is ever increasingly fighting against it. That's what this is about ,the truth. If you were really the open minded truth seeker you claim to be you wouldn't dismiss my posts so easily. Also your definition of tolerance is very skewed. It's not about believing that all viewpoints are equally valid (obviously not all worldviews are valid considering Islam) to your own ,it's about respecting the right of others to have their own viewpoint ,even when you know they are wrong or disagree with them.
I don't believe that I am any better than you are so how am I a supremacist? I believe that the Bible is the truth (of course you need to read it in the way it is meant to be read ,and Genesis is meant to be read as history) ,and that this has been proven(the internal and external evidence shows the Bible to be 100% in line with all of the evidence). Why is it that believing the Bible automatically makes someone a bigot? When God has done so much for me in my life why shouldn't I be fanatical in my duty to spread His truth to anyone who will listen? If the Bible's claims are true and that anyone who rejects Jesus will be rejected by Him ,then why shouldn't I try to spread the Gospel?
written by Cerebrum123 , January 27, 2012
Forgot to add this in my above post. How do you know my answers aren't very good if you never even really look at them or the evidence I provide to support them?
written by duh_swami , January 27, 2012
'Why is it that believing the Bible automatically makes someone a bigot'?
I have explained why you are a bigot at least ten times...
'When God has done so much for me in my life why shouldn't I be fanatical in my duty to spread His truth to anyone who will listen'?
Because you are obnoxious...Who here is listening'? Am I listening? You don't listen to others, why do you expect others to listen to you? You are a typical bible thumping Christian bigot on a mission from God, to shove your religion down the throat of others...Then you whine cry and complain when you and your religious theories get rejected...You need to come to grips with the idea that not everyone is going to believe you or the Bible, and are not interested in Jesus, and you can't 'pound' it into them...This is Islam -watch...If you were trying to convert interested Muslims to Christianity, I would have few objections, but you are not... most all your posts are directed at kuffar...
I have explained why you are a bigot at least ten times...
'When God has done so much for me in my life why shouldn't I be fanatical in my duty to spread His truth to anyone who will listen'?
Because you are obnoxious...Who here is listening'? Am I listening? You don't listen to others, why do you expect others to listen to you? You are a typical bible thumping Christian bigot on a mission from God, to shove your religion down the throat of others...Then you whine cry and complain when you and your religious theories get rejected...You need to come to grips with the idea that not everyone is going to believe you or the Bible, and are not interested in Jesus, and you can't 'pound' it into them...This is Islam -watch...If you were trying to convert interested Muslims to Christianity, I would have few objections, but you are not... most all your posts are directed at kuffar...
written by duh_swami , January 27, 2012
Forgot to add this in my above post. How do you know my answers aren't very good if you never even really look at them or the evidence I provide to support them?
What evidence is that? More Bible passages? Somebodies web site? I an show you a web site that proves Sarah Palin is a Russian spy because she can see Russia from her back yard, went to school in Moscow, Idaho, and Palin sounds a little like Putin...If I directed you there would you believe it? Why not? Is it because you know better than to believe fairy tales? All your evidence does is support fairy tales...I don't believe them, so why should I read all about them...again?
What evidence is that? More Bible passages? Somebodies web site? I an show you a web site that proves Sarah Palin is a Russian spy because she can see Russia from her back yard, went to school in Moscow, Idaho, and Palin sounds a little like Putin...If I directed you there would you believe it? Why not? Is it because you know better than to believe fairy tales? All your evidence does is support fairy tales...I don't believe them, so why should I read all about them...again?
written by Cerebrum123 , January 28, 2012
Actually one of the main reasons I first came here was to see if any Muslims or ex-Muslims might be interested in the truth ,but what I found was a lot of non-Muslims spreading things that are blatantly false about Christianity. Also whenever I post anything you butt in even when I am talking to someone else. The others on here do the same thing. Mostly I just want to clear up misinformation ,and when possible clear up certain people's misconceptions of what Christianity is all about.
Also Palin being Russian spy would be a conspiracy theory not a fairy tale. The only evidence you even have that what the Bible says is a fairy tale is your immediate bias against anything supernatural happening that isn't from one of your favorite sources. The supernatural DOES exist ,and God DOES exist as well ,and what is in Genesis IS history ,and is supported by the data we have. Mitochondrial DNA supports all people on earth being from a single female ancestor that lived about 6,500 years ago. There is massive evidence of a recent genetic "bottleneck" (Noah's Flood). All of the geologic "layers" are comprised of sedimentary rock ,with evidence of rapid burial (fossils of jellyfish ,and trees that go up through several of these layers). Y chromosome data is also consistent with the history in Genesis ,and so is even the evolutionist's map of how humanity spread across the globe through migration. Now if the history in Genesis is nothing but "fairy tales" ,then why is all of the data consistent with what is reported? Some of this evidence comes from evolutionist's own observations ,but they reject it due to it being to close to what the Bible says. They like you have a bias against the supernatural in the Bible (although you seem to accept it from pretty much anywhere else). Why should any "fairy tale" have any real evidence to support it at all?
Also Palin being Russian spy would be a conspiracy theory not a fairy tale. The only evidence you even have that what the Bible says is a fairy tale is your immediate bias against anything supernatural happening that isn't from one of your favorite sources. The supernatural DOES exist ,and God DOES exist as well ,and what is in Genesis IS history ,and is supported by the data we have. Mitochondrial DNA supports all people on earth being from a single female ancestor that lived about 6,500 years ago. There is massive evidence of a recent genetic "bottleneck" (Noah's Flood). All of the geologic "layers" are comprised of sedimentary rock ,with evidence of rapid burial (fossils of jellyfish ,and trees that go up through several of these layers). Y chromosome data is also consistent with the history in Genesis ,and so is even the evolutionist's map of how humanity spread across the globe through migration. Now if the history in Genesis is nothing but "fairy tales" ,then why is all of the data consistent with what is reported? Some of this evidence comes from evolutionist's own observations ,but they reject it due to it being to close to what the Bible says. They like you have a bias against the supernatural in the Bible (although you seem to accept it from pretty much anywhere else). Why should any "fairy tale" have any real evidence to support it at all?
written by duh_swami , January 28, 2012
' Also whenever I post anything you butt in even when I am talking to someone else. The others on here do the same thing'
This is an open forum, if you want private conversations go somewhere that offers that...Otherwise quit whining...
I'm not interested in your lame explanations and won't read anything you post over two inches in length...
I don't know what lies about Christianity you are talking about...Anything you disagree with is a lie isn't it?
This is an open forum, if you want private conversations go somewhere that offers that...Otherwise quit whining...
I'm not interested in your lame explanations and won't read anything you post over two inches in length...
I don't know what lies about Christianity you are talking about...Anything you disagree with is a lie isn't it?
written by Cerebrum123 , January 31, 2012
Well I have seen people say things like that the NT is anti-Semitic. I have seen people say that Christianity ,Judaism ,and Islam are responsible for all of the problems in the world(I will admit that the teachings of Islam are a big problem ,but not for Christianity or Judaism). vbv above said that the Bible condones slavery of all people who disbelieve it. vbv said that the Bible teaches a flat earth floating on an ocean again untrue ,in fact the Bible implies a spherical earth. These things aren't true ,and I have seen others. Most of them have been due to a misunderstanding of Christianity ,and I like to call those misconceptions or misinformation. Most of my posts are in reply to such things ,and again things get out of control from there. You get mad at every response I give you ,and you accuse me of whining. If you didn't respond with stuff like your symbolism ,I wouldn't have address you specifically. Isn't that what bothers you the most anyway ,when I refute your ridiculous ideas. Before when you had Reed and Malem to pick on you never got this mad ,but somehow I get under your skin in a way that they never did. You never defend your positions ,but switch topic. In fact you follow Malem ,Reed ,and aaki's pattern quite well. First put up something crazy ,then get refuted ,then switch topic , lather rinse repeat ,and when you run out of topics hurl insults(Reed didn't hurl insults but he certainly did the first part). I am taught to always "give a reason for the hope that is in me". You attack ,and I am going to defend. Also I don't know how big your computer screen is so I can't know how big my posts are on it.
written by duh_swami , January 31, 2012
Whine whine...That post is over two inches long so I only read the last inch...
written by vbv , February 02, 2012
You really go to any length to defend the indefensible. Can you deny that Abraham,Noah,Moses did not own slaves ? Ishmael was the progeny of Abraham and his egyptian slave-woman Hagar. While it is perfectly alright for "god's chosen people " to own slaves , much is being made out of egyptians in the ancient world using slaves. This is sheer hypocrisy.Even Jesus was having a slave ,Mary Magdelene, to fulfill his sexual urges. There are lots of scandals amongst clergymen having affairs with women, molesting them, molesting children,etc. All the 'holy-goly' rubbish is a farce to cover up all the misdeeds and a convenient weapon is the 'blasphemy law' used by monotheistic cults to suppress the truth upon pain of death. Slavery was rampant in the ancient and medevial ages all over the world and no culture is an exception to this evil practice , perhaps with the only exception of Budhism ,which incidentally is a 'heretic' belief system.
written by duh_swami , February 03, 2012
Slavery was invented when one cave man discovered he could get 'cooperation' from another cave man, by hitting him hard with a rock or stick...We have slavery in one form or another ever since...
written by Cerebrum123 , February 03, 2012
Again you show a lack of knowledge on your subject matter. Do you like posting highly inaccurate material? What was translated as "slavery" in the OT was like indentured servitude ,or even like hired help. It was a safeguard for people who were very poor. This word was used in many ways ,and could include anyone from the King (being God's slave) to any subject in that kingdom (being the slave of the king). The word is also translated as servant. Where does it say that Noah had slaves? There is no such mention of Noah having slaves. I don't think there are any mentions of Moses having any either (he might have had some when he was being raised like he was an Egyptian prince ,but no mention after that that I am aware of.). As for Abraham again the word is more like servant ,or indentured servitude.
Jesus having Mary Magdelene as a sex slave? Bring some proof before you fling wild accusations.(I think you have read things like "The Da Vinci Code" one too many times)
Yes there are plenty of people who get into high positions in the Church ,and then abuse that positions. The same can be said of ANY belief system ,and the school and political systems as well. Do you think we should get rid of school and all politics? The problem here is that they are doing things CONTRARY to what Christian teachings are ,and not in line with them.
Blasphemy is considered a sin ,but where other than Islamic countries are there "blasphemy laws"?
Again not only inaccurate information ,but wild accusations without any proof. You must not have read my earlier posts discussing the OT and slavery. You obviously know almost nothing about Christian teachings or Christian beliefs. Do some real research before venting next time.
Jesus having Mary Magdelene as a sex slave? Bring some proof before you fling wild accusations.(I think you have read things like "The Da Vinci Code" one too many times)
Yes there are plenty of people who get into high positions in the Church ,and then abuse that positions. The same can be said of ANY belief system ,and the school and political systems as well. Do you think we should get rid of school and all politics? The problem here is that they are doing things CONTRARY to what Christian teachings are ,and not in line with them.
Blasphemy is considered a sin ,but where other than Islamic countries are there "blasphemy laws"?
Again not only inaccurate information ,but wild accusations without any proof. You must not have read my earlier posts discussing the OT and slavery. You obviously know almost nothing about Christian teachings or Christian beliefs. Do some real research before venting next time.
written by Machmoed , February 04, 2012
Cerebrum,
Cut the crap. Slavery is not condamned by Jahweh. Jahweh is not the same God of the NT. Ask any jew and he will tell you the same. Christians used this for their party as did Muhammad/arabs for his/theirs.
you wrote: What was translated as "slavery" in the OT was like indentured servitude ,or even like hired help.
The same lame excuse muslims use. The only thing you use it is because you know slavery is wrong and that's why you try to bring it eufemistic.
Cut the crap. Slavery is not condamned by Jahweh. Jahweh is not the same God of the NT. Ask any jew and he will tell you the same. Christians used this for their party as did Muhammad/arabs for his/theirs.
you wrote: What was translated as "slavery" in the OT was like indentured servitude ,or even like hired help.
The same lame excuse muslims use. The only thing you use it is because you know slavery is wrong and that's why you try to bring it eufemistic.
written by duh_swami , February 04, 2012
Indentured servitude is slavery...The word 'servitude' confirms it...A free man servitude's no other man...
How to sell your daughter into slavery, brought to you by the Bible...
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
How to sell your daughter into slavery, brought to you by the Bible...
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
written by duh_swami , February 04, 2012
Explain (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)...I posted it but the editor ate it...It's instructions on how to make money selling your daughter...
written by duh_swami , February 04, 2012
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
written by Machmoed , February 04, 2012
Explain (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)...I posted it but the editor ate it...It's instructions on how to make money selling your daughter...
Sometimes the filteringprogram/editor of islam watch is far more smarter. It couldn't proces the idea of selling your own daughter. It's to immoral i geuss!
Sometimes the filteringprogram/editor of islam watch is far more smarter. It couldn't proces the idea of selling your own daughter. It's to immoral i geuss!
written by Cerebrum123 , February 04, 2012
Ok the first one is actually really simple. That selling of the daughter has to do with survival issues ,and a very poor family. This family by selling their daughter to someone who did have money would be not only insuring her survival ,but their own survival. This also had a marriage in view towards either the man making the "purchase" or his son. Many though that it would be better for their daughters to become concubines or secondary wives to a rich man then a wife to a man in their own social class( a forced labor slave is not in mind here at all). Not only must she be treated as a free woman ,but if the man takes a second wife he still has to support her. There were laws in place to make sure that this system was not abused (although I'm not saying that it was NEVER abused).
As for the second set of verses...
Again the word "slavery" and the word "property" are used ,but it is still very different from the kind of slavery of the Civil War. "Slaves" had just as much protection under the law as a "free" man(eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth still applied). They were almost equal to a Hebrew that has sold himself into slavery(the main difference being the immediate release at the end of the 6th year). This site has an in depth look at OT and ANE (Ancient Near East) slavery. christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
A look at the laws in the OT concerning slavery will show that they were FAR more humanitarian than anything like their contemporaries ,and slavery like the Civil War era.
As for the second set of verses...
Again the word "slavery" and the word "property" are used ,but it is still very different from the kind of slavery of the Civil War. "Slaves" had just as much protection under the law as a "free" man(eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth still applied). They were almost equal to a Hebrew that has sold himself into slavery(the main difference being the immediate release at the end of the 6th year). This site has an in depth look at OT and ANE (Ancient Near East) slavery. christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
A look at the laws in the OT concerning slavery will show that they were FAR more humanitarian than anything like their contemporaries ,and slavery like the Civil War era.
written by duh_swami , February 04, 2012
You said there was no slavery in the Bible, that it was indentured servitude...When you purchase a person and can own them and do what you want to them and pass them on to their children as possessions, that is not indentured servitude, it is slavery...You can't talk your way out of that, there are other examples as well...Circumstances as to why you sold your daughter into slavery does not alter the fact that the daughter was sold into slavery...Purchased people are slaves, people who are property are slaves...Your explanations are lame...You sound just like Reed Wilson trying to defend the Quran...He stood on his head to do it, just liker you do the Bible......
written by Cerebrum123 , February 05, 2012
Again I didn't say that there was no slavery in the Bible ,I said that the "slavery" in the OT is far different from what we often think of today ,and was more like indentured servitude. The daughter was NOT sold into slavery ,but was being sold into MARRIAGE. Also the "slaves" could go free at any time as long as they paid for their freedom. The "master" couldn't do whatever he wanted to them whenever he wanted. In fact they had almost the exact same rights as a "free man". Also look at it this way Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two ,but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together ,let no one separate."
7 "Why then," they asked ,"did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied ,"Moses permitted you to divorce your because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
It is likely that the same applies here. Maybe you should consider one of the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."
I also encourage you to look at the article I linked to. It discusses OT slavery in depth ,and compares it directly with what most people call slavery today.
7 "Why then," they asked ,"did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied ,"Moses permitted you to divorce your because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
It is likely that the same applies here. Maybe you should consider one of the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."
I also encourage you to look at the article I linked to. It discusses OT slavery in depth ,and compares it directly with what most people call slavery today.
written by duh_swami , February 05, 2012
This is what you said...and the Bible proves you wrong...Are you always right about everything every time, Uncle Reed?
What was translated as "slavery" in the OT was like indentured servitude ,or even like hired help.
Those verses do not describe 'hired help', they describe slavery...
What was translated as "slavery" in the OT was like indentured servitude ,or even like hired help.
Those verses do not describe 'hired help', they describe slavery...
written by Yibel , February 06, 2012
Yahshua/Jesus, son of YHVH to Muhammad, Allah's one and ONLY prophet:
One could argue, I think I would be prepared to argue but preferably over several pitches of beer, that your (Muhammed's) actual existence is secondary to the Muhammedan character portrayed by early Muslim writers. Whether an historical or fictional character in such writings, the key point arguably should be that these early Muslim authors praised a human being who is repulsive, parasitical, grossly opportunistic, rapacious, perverted (the number 9 here should always be kept in mind), narcissistic and, in general, not worthy of admiration by anyone with common sense. Historical or not, the Muhammedan personality is a deeply warped one.
That Islam rests upon this personality is: Telling. Damning. Instructive. And it's a win-win situation for all those who are trying to point out to the world at large that Islam is rotten to the core.
What do you think about the situation, Muhammad? Think that about sums it up?
One could argue, I think I would be prepared to argue but preferably over several pitches of beer, that your (Muhammed's) actual existence is secondary to the Muhammedan character portrayed by early Muslim writers. Whether an historical or fictional character in such writings, the key point arguably should be that these early Muslim authors praised a human being who is repulsive, parasitical, grossly opportunistic, rapacious, perverted (the number 9 here should always be kept in mind), narcissistic and, in general, not worthy of admiration by anyone with common sense. Historical or not, the Muhammedan personality is a deeply warped one.
That Islam rests upon this personality is: Telling. Damning. Instructive. And it's a win-win situation for all those who are trying to point out to the world at large that Islam is rotten to the core.
What do you think about the situation, Muhammad? Think that about sums it up?
written by Cerebrum123 , February 07, 2012
You didn't look at the article I gave did you? Compared to the slavery you usually here about these terms are far closer to what was done in OT times. There are further verses that give more detailed descriptions of what this slavery was actually like ,and it was far different than what most people think of today. It also served a different purpose than the slavery we think of today. In many cases it was someone very poor selling themselves into work so that they could survive. They had the same rights ,they had the ability to get their freedom whenever they wanted to as long as they could pay for it(many times they would not want to do this ,because if meant a lower chance of survival) ,and there were many laws to prevent abuse. They were even instructed to NOT return a runaway slave to it's owner. Look at the article ,because I am done responding to you on this topic unless you are going to look at the evidence.
No I am not always right about everything. I don't claim that I am ,and I never will.
No I am not always right about everything. I don't claim that I am ,and I never will.
written by duh_swami , February 07, 2012
Ho Hum ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ your exceedingly boring...
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
Is Mo hiding Aisha in that turban?