C
cestusdei
Guest
I find it fascinating that pro “leaves” Catholicism because we are so mean, but now is actually defending stoning women to death in Islam.
Kind of puts a new spin on the old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”I find it fascinating that pro “leaves” Catholicism because we are so mean, but now is actually defending stoning women to death in Islam.
It must be a terrible ordeal. Poor people. To think that a man can deprive a woman of love and affection and if she finds it elsewhere, she could ‘end up dead’. Terrible, Brutal, Barbaric.burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102
I kinda feel guilty that I found that funny, considering what a serious topic this is…Kind of puts a new spin on the old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
I’ve never found you to be particularly mean, just ignorant.I find it fascinating that pro “leaves” Catholicism because we are so mean, but now is actually defending stoning women to death in Islam.
How old is auto da fe?You have indicated no problem with Iranian law or Saudi law for that matter. Stoning women is an old Islamic custom. But to be fair they do stone men and children too. Your religion has some interesting traditions.
Some Catholics burned a “witch” in Guatemala just a couple of years ago. It’s a semi-regular event in rural latin America.When was the last auto de fe? I can post about stonings that have happened within the last year in Islam. I don’t have to go back 500 years.
Classic tactics: deny deny deny, and then when you see proof, make excuses.Really? How regular? Did the Church participate and approve of it? Let’s see the link. Let’s see a link that shows this is a regular even in Latin America. Oh, and how racist of you to attack those poor rural Indians.
Do you want me to post some more Islamic stoning stories and maybe some pics?
What a lousy attempt at misdirection the point.Ah but pro, I was playing you. Demanding specific citations and details. You do that all the time. You have no proof at all. I actually do give links, which you then ignore. But it is fun to play it your way.
The point remains. The Church didn’t participate or approve. Islam does participate and approve of stoning. Muhammed sure did or haven’t you read the hadith?
How convenient. Yet again, you fail to condemn burning people in the name of Jesus.If you can show the Catholic Church approved of this burning and was integrally involved then you would have a point. Please provide the link and the section of the code of canon law they used.
You yourself admit stoning is legal in Islam. Where have you said that stoning was wrong? I haven’t seen it. And if I do the next thing I will ask is “then why did Muhammed do it and command it?”
Just keep up that state of denial cestusdei. It’s more proof that you support burning people.I invite you to show me where we recently burned someone. In return I will post some stories of more stonings and invite you to condemn them. I would love to see you condemn stonings.
Is Pro saying the Church burned people. To be accurate, it was secular authorities who actually did the burning, not members of the Church.I invite you to show me where we recently burned someone. In return I will post some stories of more stonings and invite you to condemn them. I would love to see you condemn stonings.
I am so glad they are “legally” stoning people now.
How nice !![]()
I agree that it’s inhumane, but the fact is, Iran is not a lawless society and never has been.
So the law that provides this punishment passed supposedly in 1980, wasn’t on the books until 1991. That’s a strong indicator that the letter is a hoax.
To give pro a break, he did actually indicate he was against the stoning law.You have indicated no problem with Iranian law or Saudi law for that matter. Stoning women is an old Islamic custom. But to be fair they do stone men and children too. Your religion has some interesting traditions.