We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed, says BBC boss

[BlindManWalking]

Eh, I’ll just leave this right here:

La ana kafir!

la ilaha illa Allah, waw Yesu masih Allah, waw Yesu bin Allah, waw Yesu Allah…!

Inti kafira!

 

[jakasaki]

When one is a smoker for decades and then quits smoking, that person who participated in the act of smoking is the worse when it comes to smokers.

Same goes for a Christian who quits Christianity, and becomes a muslim and believes in islam & their self proclaimed prophet.

 

[Kouyate42]

When one is a smoker for decades and then quits smoking, that person who participated in the act of smoking is the worse when it comes to smokers.

Same goes for a Christian who quits Christianity, and becomes a muslim and believes in islam & their self proclaimed prophet.

What are you talking about?!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

BlindManWalking;9043990]I could care less about poor translation done with certain dubious intent.

Ok, then your argument is with the translators of the biblical text not the messenger

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

On the other hand Mock Jesus and you’re likely to wake up in hell when you die .

Sins against the Son can be forgiven, the only sin that will not be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

The sin “against the Holy Spirit” will not be forgiven in this age or in the next age.

How can the BBC or Muslims sin against the Holy Spirit when the secular world and Islam do not know or have the Holy Spirit?

 

[Ladervijd]

Matthew 5:21“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not [unlawfully] kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.

Murder depends on legal definition. Killing is a physical act - “killing, to cause the death of a person, or the act of doing so”, with person including animal but not only, respectivly “to cause the death of a living being”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill
So or so, “whoever kills will be liable to judgement” makes more sense as it technically isn’t murder (even if it so) until it is judged so.
And even an executioner (where it applies) and so-called butchers (that is those who kill “domesticated” animals for food, though that could be further differentiated into those who do so for money and who not) and so-called vets (in both meanings really, though many times vet = vet as animals were around in military and not everyone knew “gore” including diseases from tv) are liable to (professional) judgement as whether they did it ‘alright’ when about a lawful act of killing.

Also a reason, in connection to definitions, why “kills” makes more sense in the quoted is that defintion of “murder” has the “malice aforethought” connected to it, which it may be not obvious to be in relation to “enjoyment of killing”. in many legal systems “enjoyment of killing” is considered pyschopatic or similiar though. Albeit i think (not only) in Catholic Christianity “enjoyment” and also “profit” is considered “malice”. And “aforethought” happens to be misunderstood, regardless of whether “malice” is defined as any “selfishness”.

Also why “kills” is better in the quoted, again largely in connection to the definition of “murder”, is that where execution is a lawful means and in particular where such is defined/decided by government, it can easily lead to “unpleasant” situations. That is in the modern sense, as in the past it may have been in places common for rulers to be in charge of matters of life and death (and that understandably so for conditions at those times). And they actually had a bit of ethics about it:
bible.cc/luke/19-27.htm

Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

as in that they were in direct view thereof (e.g. colloseum with ruler being there).
Though, there being a reference to “power struggle” respectivly to “revenge”.

One thing being the “questionability” of any killing, a bit different thing the lawful regulation thereof. i think these things have been dealt with over and over plenty of times already. Though somehow it went from “license to kill” issued and performed by religious, respectivly by official organized church, to state again, that somehow being largely secularization.

And foremostly, most humans never have, respectivly shouldn’t have, a “license to kill”. So the message is clearly “Thou shall not kill”. Not meaning that 22 would make no sense, though that is on a milder level.
What about self-defense in particular without “license to kill” though? ideally there should be no need to self-defend by killing, respectivly in the past when attacked it was either being murdered (with such happening without the one killed really noticing), hunted with the meaning of kill by predator (again, usually quick death), or fleeing; and in combat ideally there should be no kill of opponent, not only because attempt to attack leaves defense open (which applies even to “shoot-outs” where “camping” may be safer than counter-attack when attacked, in terms of combat in particular with automated weapons).

And most situations are not as depicted in a number of movies or such, where the “hero” and “villain” are (depicted) destinct and it is clear that the villain is about to kill someone and the hero kills the villain, though, yes, to kill to protect can be senseful when it is senseful, albeit neutralization (of a threat) without killing or without any harm for that matter is rather masterful.
in case of rape, at least arguably, the rapist belongs to the raped so or so, that is that the rapist with life and everything is slave (with no of them if or but in favour of the slave) to the raped, with such being hereditary within family of the raped that is if the raped is dead a relative thereof becomes master of the rapist and when there should be no legal relatives whoever is around really, which includes vendetta within law if such seems appropriate and including the killing of the to rape and/or the raping straight away, though stumbling upon a consensual couple in flagranty does not justify killing, and other catches. Depends on the wider context - e.g. regarding the stumbling upon two who have sex, where out-of-wedlock sex is illegal, stumbling upon two who are not wed together there is clearly something wrong (and in particular considering that the raped may have been silenced so or so).

Also, shootings e.g. bisons out of ‘sports’ - very wrong; archaic hunter/s hunting a herd animal for food - alright; kill for fur - wrong; scalpeling a living animal - very wrong; archaic hunter/s kill also for fur (especially where no means of producing thick clothing for winter) - alright; scalpeling those who scalpel/led - alright it seems, cruel though anyhow. Point being that any act of killing is a sacrifice to God, and God doesn’t like kill of any kind unless it is for immediate survival and even then God prefers at least a second look, with no acceptance of suffering.

 

[hosemonkey]

I agree. Mocking the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is also a grave sin which will lead to the fires of the Hellfire.

No one goes to Hell for mocking a false “Prophet.”
IMHO the non-moslem world needs to stop being pushed around by these backward people.

 

[Marybeloved]

I just think the BBC are being smart. If you mock Jesus then Christians do get angry, but a lot of people can laugh about it. In many parts of the Muslim world however, it’s not that they can’t take a joke but unlike for example with Catholics, they have actual rules about how you treat the name and image of Muhammed. We don’t believe that drawing Jesus is blasphemy for example (no matter how you do it). Also, regardless of whether you believe they’re justified, mocking Islam = protests. You can’t control the actions of others so you have to control your own - so to avoid causing a riot, just don’t tip the boat.

My :twocents:.

I agree with everything you state here except the statement that drawing Christ regardless of how you do it is not Blasphemy. If you draw Christ in an insulting, derogatory or mocking way, and not just to express some truth about him, it is indeed blasphemous. Apart from that, your post is right on- PCorrectness has turned Christianity into a free for all target in the modern world and Islam a sacred cow that no one can touch. In a way, that’s good- Christ promised us that this is him and his followers. We have a God that freely chose humiliation for us. How much should it make us love him even more?

 

[Ladervijd]

God doesn’t like injury neither, especially as injury may happen to cause death or worse. Though, God is not a child who does only what it likes.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I agree with everything you state here except the statement that drawing Christ regardless of how you do it is not Blasphemy. If you draw Christ in an insulting, derogatory or mocking way, and not just to express some truth about him, it is indeed blasphemous. Apart from that, your post is right on- PCorrectness has turned Christianity into a free for all target in the modern world and Islam a sacred cow that no one can touch. In a way, that’s good- Christ promised us that this is him and his followers. We have a God that freely chose humiliation for us. How much should it make us love him even more?

When I said ‘regardless of how you do it’ I didn’t mean you can draw Christ however you like, but that to Muslims ANY image of Mohammed is bad no matter how he is portrayed (so, regardless of how you draw him, good or bad) whereas the same is not true in Christianity. You can draw Jesus well and not blaspheme, however even if you draw Mohammed well you always blaspheme.

 

[True_Faith]

:heart:Hmm, I wonder why - isn’t that because Christianity is the TRUE Faith, and Satan is at work?

People think it is harmless to mock the True Faith because we believe what Jesus said - When someone slaps your cheek, give them the other side to slap.

OUTRAGEOUS!! To the world, to the devil, this is all a big game. THEY ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE!
I think I need some of these::tissues::tissues::tissues:

Some people think that Violence solves everything. Me? I believe that Silence solves everything.

:heart:We believe in Love.

The Chastisement is coming soon.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ladervijd;9045364]Murder depends on legal definition. Killing is a physical act - “killing, to cause the death of a person, or the act of doing so”, with person including animal but not only, respectivly “to cause the death of a living being”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill
So or so, “whoever kills will be liable to judgement” makes more sense as it technically isn’t murder (even if it so) until it is judged so.

What about self-defense in particular without “license to kill” though? ideally there should be no need to self-defend by killing, respectivly in the past when attacked it was either being murdered (with such happening without the one killed really noticing), hunted with the meaning of kill by predator (again, usually quick death), or fleeing; and in combat ideally there should be no kill of opponent, not only because attempt to attack leaves defense open (which applies even to “shoot-outs” where “camping” may be safer than counter-attack when attacked, in terms of combat in particular with automated weapons).

Ladervijd, my son served combat tours as a Marine in both Iraq and Afghansistan. My son is what the Marines call a H.O.G (Hunter of Gunmen). My son is a registered sniper #??? with the federal government. He has gone on many missions including the after math of the helicopter that went down in Afghan. August 7, 2011 killing Navy Seals and Army Rangers. I am informed by my son’s commanders that he saved many civilians and Military lives doing his job.

How do you assess those like my son with a legal license and professional training of their jobs? with “thou shall not kill”?

Then is a Jihad justified? with “thou shall not kill”? If their prophet is mocked?

 

[BlindManWalking]

Ladervijd, my son served combat tours as a Marine in both Iraq and Afghansistan. My son is what the Marines call a H.O.G (Hunter of Gunmen). My son is a registered sniper #??? with the federal government. He has gone on many missions including the after math of the helicopter that went down in Afghan. August 7, 2011 killing Navy Seals and Army Rangers. I am informed by my son’s commanders that he saved many civilians and Military lives doing his job.

How do you assess those like my son with a legal license and professional training of their jobs? with “thou shall not kill”?

Then is a Jihad justified? with “thou shall not kill”? If their prophet is mocked?

Sir or Ma’am,

First and foremost, thank you for your son’s service to our nation, particularly as a Marine and as an 0317 (assuming he has picked up the full MOS title for Scout/Sniper).

You will not find an answer here which is correct, for such men have had to, within themselves, come to terms of what they do with God.

It can become a situation of murder as easily as one of heroic saving of lives.

Only God and your son know what the score is on the issue, and looking for someone’s opinion on the internet regarding a Marine S/S is likely to end up poor on a site such as this.

Won’t find many who understand the concept of what a Sniper does, no, most don’t understand how he is one of the few on the battlefield whose kills are personal and legitimate to a level most will never know.

Your son is a sheepdog, not a wolf.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: youtube.com/watch?v=W1yiWWunP6A

 

[hosemonkey]

Sir or Ma’am,

First and foremost, thank you for your son’s service to our nation, particularly as a Marine and as an 0317 (assuming he has picked up the full MOS title for Scout/Sniper).

As a three tour Vietnam combat veteran and one who was placed in the situation of taking lives (PBR gunner) I heartily concur with your assessment. One must come to terms with it, your taking of lives protects the lives of others and defends the lives of the innocent. It is not easy and changes one’s life forever, but sometimes must be done.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Sir or Ma’am,

First and foremost, thank you for your son’s service to our nation, particularly as a Marine and as an 0317 (assuming he has picked up the full MOS title for Scout/Sniper).

You will not find an answer here which is correct, for such men have had to, within themselves, come to terms of what they do with God.

It can become a situation of murder as easily as one of heroic saving of lives.

Only God and your son know what the score is on the issue, and looking for someone’s opinion on the internet regarding a Marine S/S is likely to end up poor on a site such as this.

Won’t find many who understand the concept of what a Sniper does, no, most don’t understand how he is one of the few on the battlefield whose kills are personal and legitimate to a level most will never know.

Your son is a sheepdog, not a wolf.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: youtube.com/watch?v=W1yiWWunP6A

Thank you. true my son’s MOS is 317, sniper school issued him his sniper number I referenced.

Although the topic I introduced here was not to discuss these military jobs in particular, But to discuss the nature of “shall not kill” and how this covenant law is interpreted to those who defend themselves from such an act and those who are skilled to act as such.

I never heard Marines related to as sheepdog nor a wolf. Hitlers men referenced Marines as “devil dogs”. Most civilians such as myself are not familiar with military idioms and Marine definitions of them. So I would not take offense of you calling battle tested Marine scout snipers as my son a “sheepdog”.

Again my interest here is not the military in particular only the act from which they defend those who cannot defend themselves.

The poster revealed some interesting insights, I was requesting a dialogue to “thou shall not kill” from the real life examples that I applied.

I respect your opinion on the issue, but my subject matter pertains to faith which this forum addresses not the military.

Thank you also for your service to our country

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As a three tour Vietnam combat veteran and one who was placed in the situation of taking lives (PBR gunner) I heartily concur with your assessment. One must come to terms with it, your taking of lives protects the lives of others and defends the lives of the innocent. It is not easy and changes one’s life forever, but sometimes must be done.

Thank you also hosemonkey for your service to our country.

From your experience; How do you measure those who “kill” in defending themselves and others, with those who are “killed” while defending themselves and others?

Are any of these examples violating “thou shall not kill”?

Compared to those who “claim” Jihad in order to kill. Do these also violate “thou shall not kill”?

 

[hosemonkey]

Thank you also hosemonkey for your service to our country.

From your experience; How do you measure those who “kill” in defending themselves and others, with those who are “killed” while defending themselves and others?

The correct translation is “thou shalt not murder.” One does not commit murder against an armed enemy who is actively resisting or attacking. If the enemy is disarmed and not resisting, one is obligated to treat them humanely. If they are killed while not resisting, that may constitute murder. War brings on many circumstances, many gray areas. The opposition is fighting for their cause/country as vigourously as we are, it takes at least two parties to wage war, so yes, they regard their cause as we do. Those engaged in jihad are in the cause of a false doctrine/religion, much like the Cannanites who were displaced by Israel in the promised land. In war, one is obligated to defend oneself as well as one’s comrades, as well as to destroy the ememy. This is why they call it “war.” Sad fact.

 

[Kouyate42]

No one goes to Hell for mocking a false “Prophet.”
IMHO the non-moslem world needs to stop being pushed around by these backward people.

You might find the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the Rasulullah or Messenger of God, as stated quite clearly in the Qur’an.

As to that second bit, I personally find that to be insulting. I’m a Muslim, and I’m also a degree-educated British citizen living and working in the UK. As per British and European law, my religious beliefs are subject to the same consideration and respect as any other religion. That includes not insulting the Holy Prophet of Allah (saw).

 

[LemonAndLime]

You might find the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the Rasulullah or Messenger of God, as stated quite clearly in the Qur’an.

As to that second bit, I personally find that to be insulting. I’m a Muslim, and I’m also a degree-educated British citizen living and working in the UK. As per British and European law, my religious beliefs are subject to the same consideration and respect as any other religion. That includes not insulting the Holy Prophet of Allah (saw).

 

[BlindManWalking]

You might find the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the Rasulullah or Messenger of God, as stated quite clearly in the Qur’an.

As to that second bit, I personally find that to be insulting. I’m a Muslim, and I’m also a degree-educated British citizen living and working in the UK. As per British and European law, my religious beliefs are subject to the same consideration and respect as any other religion. That includes not insulting the Holy Prophet of Allah (saw).

I’m betting eternity Mohammed is not a prophet of God, though a prophet of “allah”, he might be.

As to the 2nd bit, you’re not Muslim, as you haven’t taken Shahada from past bits I’ve read. Is this changed? Have you said the magic words?

You’re espousing a backwards way of thinking formulated by backwards people.

That doesn’t make you backwards, just very, very confused.

Got any more cool titles to add to your C/V today to add weight to your inconsistent and totally dualistic worldview?