Christian woman to be stoned to death

UPI ^ | Feb 1, 2002 | UWE SIEMON-NETTO

[Pistias]

Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent your argument; that was more for the kids who might try this at home, if you get me.

[Pistias]

True. Believing in nothing (or trying to) is what drove Nietzsche out of his (astoundingly, terrifyingly brilliant) noodle.

[New Horizon]

O.K.

Why do muslims bury girls in the ground and throw rocks at their heads until they die?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[mustapha mond]

Excellent point, It pushed Abbie Hoffman over the edge too.-MM

[mustapha mond]

I suggest you get a copy of the Koran and start reading at chapter five. It's all in there. Every muslim nation persecutes Christians and Jews and every muslim nation threatens their non-muslim neighbors. Why, because it says they must do so in the Koran. As for stoneing: that appears in the Mohammeds writing outside the Koran.-MM

[pariah]

Most of the brainiacs building the atom bomb were atheists, thank god.

Einstein was not an atheist. ('God does not play dice with the universe'.) Don't know about the others who worked on the Manhattan Project.

But exactly what are you trying to prove with your anti-religious scribbling anyhow? Fanatics don't need religion to justify themselves, any ideology will do... or they can just invent a bogus 'religion' (Gaia and all that pap).

You should put things in perspective and acknowledge your debt to the religiosity of those who founded this country. Religious conviction played a decisive role in abolishing slavery, here and in Britain. When people with religious convictions, particularly Christianity, put together a revolution you get Philadelphia, 1776. When atheists put together a revolution you get Paris, 1791. Or Russia 1917. Always remember that the Parisian and Russian intellectuals had the best of intentions, they were very idealistic, like Libertarians. But something was missing in their revolutions that drove them immediately to the basest level of paranoia and brute political repression. Can you guess what that is?

[RamsNo1]

How little we hear of the slaughter of Christians in these Muslim countries.

[Pistias]

I have reason to belive Dr. Hoffman's insanity is due to more than his skepticism.

[Pistias]

belive, believe, whatever...it's late

[mustapha mond]

Good point-MM

[mustapha mond]

Check out the "Voice of the Martyrs" website. More Christians died for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined.-MM

[Michael2001]

Ah yes, Islam: the religion of peace and mercy.

And I know it's so because the newsman tells me so

[New Horizon]

I asked for muslim cretins to reply. Are you a muslim cretin? Or are you their defense attorney?

With that said, I may read the koran, starting chapter five, as you have suggested. I hope it's "all in there", like you said.

In any case, I guess you still think it's perfectly "normal" punishment to bury a girl and throw rocks at her head as a form of punishment?

Just answer that one question, please...then I will read chapter five.

I think you won't answer the question, but dodge the issue with more strange and relatively useless rhetoric.

[pariah]

If you are correct and there is no God then people owe Stalin, Hitler, Mao, ect apologies because there is no objective right and wrong and no higher law.

You are right about atheists who demand their Constitutional Rights, but refuse to acknowleged, as our Founders exresssly did, that God is the Source of these and all human rights. Atheists have been writing checks on the moral bank account of Christianity for ages, all the while mocking the very concept of a God, without Whom all moral reasoning may be reduced to a matter of arbitrary and temporary human arrangements, or personal preference.

The notion of moral/political systems as merely the transitory expressions of various groupings of human interest (i.e. classes) is what underlies Marxism and its academically fraudulent cousin, Deconstructionism. And it is what leads to class warfare and justifies the power-driven intellectuals in mass-murder and totalitarian repression once they gain power. Ideals not tempered by the recognition of a Creator become a carte blanche for terrorizing your opponents into submission. If this country had been founded on an expressly atheistic or agnostic creed, I have no doubt it would have fallen apart within a decade or two. Thank God it was not, and did not. Nor will it.

[trussell]

"sister", thankyou

[New Horizon]

Absolutely true...beautifully stated.

[Dimensio]

"The humans are the highest intellegence in the universe argument" was used to demonstrate that athiests are either egoists or idol worshipers. Your demonstration of faith in unproven scientific theory helped prove my point.

So if he believes that humans are the highest intelligence in the universe then he's an egoist, but if he believes without evidence that there exists other life in the universe higher than humans without evidence then he's an egoist...

Sounds more like you're playing a word game.

I don't know about Doctor Doom, but I am open to the possibility that there exists "higher" (for whatever definition of "higher" you are using) life forms in the universe than humans. I have no evidence for their existence, so I can only claim that I've never heard of any -- but I don't dismiss the possibility and as such it is not accurate to say that I have claimed that humans are the "highest" forms of life in the universe.

[GeronL]

DD Sticky Pages is definitely not 'higher' (in a god sense, although he's probably drunk a lot)

[Pistias]

I am open to the possibility that there exists "higher" (for whatever definition of "higher" you are using) life forms in the universe than humans

Uhh...better define "higher." Otherwise what you just said is at best irony and at worst hoodwinkery (I just made that up, and kudos to me).

[Dimensio]

I am open to the possibility that there exists "higher" (for whatever definition of "higher" you are using) life forms in the universe than humans

Uhh...better define "higher." Otherwise what you just said is at best irony and at worst hoodwinkery (I just made that up, and kudos to me).

Er, who should define "higher"? Given that I was responding to the claim and not initially using the word "higher", I don't think that I'm the one who needs to define it.

Of course, using human standards when defining "higher" can be tricky -- if you're defining higher with humanity as a frame of reference, you can get stuck where you've assumed your conclusion with bad definitions...but then with the proper definition-mangling you could define humans as being "higher" beings than a God.