Raping non-muslim... Legal in Islam?

[JMM159]

*Originally Posted by JMM159
lol

How do you know decisively that there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records, that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl. Have you gone through the whole Christian religious literature?*

No but that is not common knowledge. If Jesus had married and had sex with a little girl I’m sure the people who hate Christians like yourself would be only too glad to provide the evidence for.

You haven’tt even gone through the whole Christian relgious literature yet you believe that there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records, that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl?

looooooooool

Your saying, “if Jesus had married and had sex…, then people who hate Chrisitians would glad to provide the evidence for” is senseless because I did not claim that Jesus Christ never married and had sex with a little girl. It is you who claimed that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMM
But the question is have you ever went through Christians’ vast collections of Bibles and their multi-coloured traditions and then by applying your same “unique” laughable standard/methodolgy found anything “interesting” in them?

Why would I do that? Jesus Christ never married and had sex with a little girl.

Then you also claimed that:

Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar
Because there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records, that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl. So I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now how do you really know there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl? Is the discovering of Christian historical records is over or still archeologists discovering the ancient and most ancient and most most ancient Manuscripts of Christian scriptures and then amending the current Bibles? Do you know what the writer of “Gospel according to John” says in endings of chapters 20 and 21 of his “Gospel”?

Do you know how the New American Bible changed/replaced the words “hairs of the feet” to “hair between the legs”? And did you find 1 John 5:7 of Douay R. Bible in the New American Bible of 1970’s?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

JMM:

You haven’tt even gone through the whole Christian relgious literature yet you believe that there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records, that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl?

Either you’re intellectually challenged (and I mean it in the nicest possible way) or you’re deliberately being obstrusive because I have told you already that for such a central issue critics would be quick to point this out if there were the slightest hint of such occurrence with Jesus.

The fact that for 2,000 years there have been many critics of Christianity - especially Muslims. And yet, for 1,400 years no Muslim has ever come up with the evidence that Jesus married and had sex with a nine-year old child

Thus, the balance of probability is that he didn’t. To argue that he did or that he could have as you’re doing is the LOGICAL FALLACY OF ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTUM.
JMM:

looooooooool

The laugh’s on you because you re being extremely silly.
JMM:

Your saying, “if Jesus had married and had sex…, then people who hate Chrisitians would glad to provide the evidence for” is senseless because I did not claim that Jesus Christ never married and had sex with a little girl. It is you who claimed that:

Yes I claimed that because I know there has never been any evidence put forward to show this. If it had, for such an important issue, it would be well known - just like how the issue of Muhammad having sex with a little girl is well known throughout the world.
JMM:

But the question is have you ever went through Christians’ vast collections of Bibles and their multi-coloured traditions and then by applying your same “unique” laughable standard/methodolgy found anything “interesting” in them?

Rodrigo:

Why would I do that? Jesus Christ never married and had sex with a little girl.

Then you also claimed that:

Rodrigo:

Because there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records, that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl. So I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now how do you really know there is no Christian historical records, nor any other historical records that tell us Jesus married and had sex with a little girl?

Because nobody has yet provided the evidence to show this.
JMM:

Is the discovering of Christian historical records is over or still archeologists discovering the ancient and most ancient and most most ancient Manuscripts of Christian scriptures and then amending the current Bibles? Do you know what the writer of “Gospel according to John” says in endings of chapters 20 and 21 of his “Gospel”?

And until you do find such evidence to show that Jesus married and had sex with a little girl, we do have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Please look up what ‘benefit of the doubt’ means. It means you do not make the charge that he did, and you can make the claim that he didn’t.
JMM:

Do you know how the New American Bible changed/replaced the words “hairs of the feet” to “hair between the legs”? And did you find 1 John 5:7 of Douay R. Bible in the New American Bible of 1970’s?

You’ll have to ask Christians that. I have told you already.

 

[inJESUS]

Nathann, JMM and UNi have much in common…they might be the same person.

 

[inJESUS]

Now i am convinced . Nathann, uni, and JMM are the same troll who used to be nicknamed Freedom, StAugustine and other 4 nicks before being banned . Don’t waste your time Rodrigo cuz you won’t find any logic. Maybe we should tell the moderators.

 

[ssejllenrad]

Now i am convinced . Nathann, uni, and JMM are the same troll who used to be nicknamed Freedom, StAugustine and other 4 nicks before being banned . Don’t waste your time Rodrigo cuz you won’t find any logic. Maybe we should tell the moderators.

Why does he always come back anyway? To torment us?

 

[inJESUS]

Why does he always come back anyway? To torment us?

to show us what literalism in Islam does to one’s brain. I personally am not tormented by no means i just feel sorry for my brothers and sisters who waste their time on a person who does not even know what a metaphore is…
So far he failed miserably

 

[JMM159]

Either you’re intellectually challenged (and I mean it in the nicest possible way) or you’re deliberately being obstrusive because I have told you already that for such a central issue critics would be quick to point this out if there were the slightest hint of such occurrence with Jesus.

The fact that for 2,000 years there have been many critics of Christianity - especially Muslims. And yet, for 1,400 years no Muslim has ever come up with the evidence that Jesus married and had sex with a nine-year old child

Thus, the balance of probability is that he didn’t. To argue that he did or that he could have as you’re doing is the LOGICAL FALLACY OF ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTUM.

The laugh’s on you because you re being extremely silly.

Yes I claimed that because I know there has never been any evidence put forward to show this. If it had, for such an important issue, it would be well known - just like how the issue of Muhammad having sex with a little girl is well known throughout the world.

Because nobody has yet provided the evidence to show this.

And until you do find such evidence to show that Jesus married and had sex with a little girl, we do have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Please look up what ‘benefit of the doubt’ means. It means you do not make the charge that he did, and you can make the claim that he didn’t.

You’ll have to ask Christians that. I have told you already.

Rodrigo,

An advice to you. Make sure what you are posting makes atleast some sense to objective and sincere minds.

Before I respond to your above an another senseless post, I would like you to re read your own post and see if it really make any sense.

 

[JMM159]

to show us what literalism in Islam does to one’s brain. I personally am not tormented by no means

Are you sure?

loooooooooooool

i just feel sorry for my brothers and sisters who waste their time on a person who does not even know what a metaphore is…
So far he failed miserably

You mean you feel sorry for your brothers and sisters because they are not as “intelligent” as you to understand what a metaphore is? Are you underestimating all of your brothers and sisters’ intelligence?

How do you know in verse 20 of Isaiah 7 in New American Bible, Catholic God is talking metaphorically when he re-inspired the words “hair between your legs” by taking back his own previously inspired words “hairs of the feet” of Douay R. Bible?

Are you telling me that NAB - Catholic Bible - is wrongly inspired by the Catholic God/Holy Ghost or the Bible got corrupted by the lying pens of the scribes?

If shaving the hair between your legs is a metaphore then how your Catholic God will inflict his disgrace and sufferings on his own people? By spanking you with a hot metal rod or hammering your head with a rock? But please, before answering, keep in mind that your Catholic God is very loving and you call him LOVE.

Let’s see what is your answer because Rodrigo thinks that he is not capable to answer/defend your Catholicism …and people like you are more “better” than him…but you are not only advicing Atheist Rodrigo back not to answer me but preventing your Catholic brothers and sisters too… looool

I don’t think Rodrigo realised why he should not and cannot defend Catholicism. IMO, since Rodrigo doesn’t even believe in the existence of God, then it makes no sense for him to talk about non-existent God and then go further to discuss how such non-existent God will inflict his disgrace and sufferings on his own people…looooool

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Rodrigo,

An advice to you. Make sure what you are posting makes atleast some sense to objective and sincere minds.

Before I respond to your above an another senseless post, I would like you to re read your own post and see if it really make any sense.

JMM, I don’t care for your advice. I have been very patient and polite with you but you seem to be an obnoxious juvenile who just does not get it. You repeatedless fail to see the difference between historical facts and religious beliefs and you keep on wanting me to defend Christianity in your attempt to discredit by tu quoque.

The readers can see you’re a waste of time. Please don’t ask me to defend Christianity again. Nor ask me to justify using Islamic sources to show Islam for what it is. Your Islamic sources condemn your religion and your prophet. I have the right to use your Islamic sources, regardless of whether I believe in Islam or not. Like I told you many times, one does not have to believe in a religion to use the historical records of that religion. This is just basic common sense.

So grow up and leave us adults to discuss Islam.

 

[Sixtus]

I do not believe it., I have been hurt more times by Protestants than I have by Moslems. Therefore on the basis of my experience, Islam is less violent than Protestant Christianity.

 

[exoflare]

I do not believe it., I have been hurt more times by Protestants than I have by Moslems. Therefore on the basis of my experience, Islam is less violent than Protestant Christianity.

Move to Saudi Arabia and see how long you keep saying that…

 

[JMM159]

JMM, I don’t care for your advice. I have been very patient and polite with you but you seem to be an obnoxious juvenile who just does not get it.

looooooooooooooool

If my posts don’t make sense to you then you don’t have to reply. Just ignore my post(s) and reply the posts that are not from obnoxious juveniles.

But I liked when you call me obnoxious juvenile. Thanks for your very kind “atheistic” words. Do you know what those Jews who rejected Jesus as their Messaih used to call him and still what Jews have attitude towards him? I guess not since you cannot even defend Catholic Christianity, then, please read atleast what Israel Shahak has written.

Are you sure you are not a Catholic Christian?

 

[JMM159]

You repeatedless fail to see the difference between historical facts and religious beliefs and you keep on wanting me to defend Christianity in your attempt to discredit by tu quoque.

Infact it is YOU dear atheist, who have no idea what the hell you are talking about while misusing/abusing the religious text of Islamic faith. So I have to stop you before you keep making yourself fool and waste more of your valuable time and energy in writing meaningless, sensless and mindless posts.

What I said about Christianity is not a tu qouque, it was to make you thinking.

The time you spent thus far on this forum, had you spent it on learning atleast the basics of Islam from Islamic right perspective you would never have made yourself a fool in the eyes of any knowledgeable person.

But with your current “knowledge” you are a like ‘Andhaon mein kaana raja’.

loooooooooooool

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

JMM,
When you find out the meaning of ‘tu quoque’ perhaps you might be embarrassed.

So long, kiddo.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[JMM159]

The readers can see you’re a waste of time. Please don’t ask me to defend Christianity again…

LOOOOOOOOL

An another sign of your frustration and helplessness because you have no case against Islam at all, as you have no real idea what the hell you have been talking about.

I read your “discussions” with pro_universal, and have seen how he so easily broke into pieces all of your “arguments”.

Now you are telling me that you cannot even defend Christianity?

You are like a kiraya ka tuttoo, who is “hired/invited” to “defend” Catholic Chrsitianity because those who invited you here have no guts nor knowledge of their Catholicism to defend it. Why? Because the very basics of Catholic Christianity is irrational and illogical, leave alone other stuff that is built upon such irrational and illogical foundation.

Why do you think even the present Pope embarked himself to attack Islam (indirectly and not like a man) by resurrecting an outdated baseless qoute of a centuries old non-sensical Emporer, instead of debating with real rational stuff/substance if he had any in his own basket?

Obviously if Pope had any substance in his Catholicism, he as being a religious leader of Catholics, would certainly have used it to convince sincere and truthseeking people among almost 2 billion Muslims around the globe. Do you really think this Pope is a follower of Christ? He doesn’t even seem a follower of his own predecessor JP 2 leave alone Jesus Christ who was circumcised when he was a baby of 8 days old.Duh!!!

Do you know what Pope JP 2 had said about Islam and Moslems? Did he not kiss the Holy book of Islam–Kuran?

But what made/inspired this present Pope to go grazy to act like a coward in such a hurry, not too long after his appointment as a Pope, with his typical senseless bugus speech/statements?

And now he is apologizing…duh.!!. In other words this Pope is licking his own spit. Why he had to insult his own position? Does he now have any dignity? His stupid speech has now increased even the curiosity of those Christians who never had any intention to know Islam nor ever interested to know it. Now guess what will be the outcome? The outcome: more sincere, truthseeking and curious Catholics and even non-Cathlics will revert to Islam.

Surah Al-Imran 3:54
**وَمَكَرُواْ وَمَكَرَ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ **

Wamakaroo wamakarAllahu wAllahu khayrulmakireen

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah

 

[JMM159]

JMM,
When you find out the meaning of ‘tu quoque’ perhaps you might be embarrassed.

So long, kiddo.

Chau,
Rodrigo

‘tu quoque’ is defined as “a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior”.

Now, am I acting like you? Am I an atheist yet “invited/hired” by some mindless Catholics to save the “integrity” of Catholicsm by not defending it but by attacking Islam by misusing/abusing the religious text of Islam?

In what sense I am acting like you?

You are a like a kiraya ka tuttoo, as I said earlier. You are a confessed Atheist, right? Do you know what is to be an Atheist or who is called an Atheist? What an atheist has to do with defending an irrational/illogical faith such as Catholicism?

How a person who is such a foolish that he doesn’t even believe in the existence of God, is intelligent/good enough to be invited by such Catholics who you think are more capable than you, to defend their Catholicism?

LOOOOOOOOOOL

To all Catholics:

With such irrational, senseless and mindlessness things that are going on here, do you really think that sincere/knowledgeable people will take *you sensless mindless people *seriously?

If your "infallible"Pope is not taken seriously, then who are you as opposed to this present Pope? And who is this “invited/hired” atheist whose name is Rodrigo Bivar? LOOOOOOL

Are you all not wasting your time by not even listening to your dads and moms if you really had ones?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Spare us the ranting, Muslim. You tried to commit tu quoque against me when you thought I am a Christian, and you still can’t get it into your head that I’m not here to defend Christianity. There are Christians here who are better able to help you understand Christianity than I.

Otherwise, go play in the sandbox with the little kiddies.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed for Moderator review.