You go to Hell for believing some parts of the Bible are bull****, but not others-

That does not leave much to discuss in the bible, then, does it?

 

The Bible, despite deliberate attempts by some translators to stack the deck, the Bible retains enough good stuff to enable us to discover God's Intent, if we are willing to be detectives and figure out His Intent, and have someone to help us get past the obstacles.

Most folks impose their own society contructed mentality on the Bible. They will not find His Intent that way.
View attachment 23765

 

I didn't have to "make anything up". Those were the translator's notes.

 

I didn't change the headline.

 

It seems you at least have one thing in common with the Reverend Terry Jones. You are both Islamophobes.

 

Im not criticizing you. The headline was not about "unicorns" as such anyway. It was like, you know, totally a metaphor.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh? The translator said something about people running so fast they didnt notice the smaller horn?

 

So YOU apparently are fine and dandy with the "best role model of all time", for 20% of humanity right now, being a pedophile? Can you tell us what part of "role model" and "pedophile" not belonging in the same sentence you DON'T understand? Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm not sure you really understand fully how depraved the "prophet" of 20% of humanity was.
So please tell us the 3 worst things that Mohammad did, in your opinion. It's very hard to limit to only 3, but all 3 of your responses should be FELONIES, by the way. Ready, go!

 

Are you still promoting that silly lie in spite of having been given the facts on more that one occasion?

 

Margot, you and I will never know for sure, but if, repeat if, hypothetically, Mohammad did have sex with a nine-year old girl (which would be against her will, it can be argued - i.e. rape) would you find Mohammad morally reprehensible? I would, because I care about innocent people. I don't think you can answer this question directly, am I right?

 

Historically .. and long before Islam.. girls were not married until puberty.. The Arabs were herders and they knew the danger of pregnancy for immature females.

 

I just showed that religion is so vile, so disgusting, that it won't even let good moral people CONDEMN PEDOPHILIA! Religion must be stopped in its tracks, folks! How can we best do that?

You can't condemn pedophilia, my friend, because FEAR has been put in your heart to even question a "prophet"! Deep down, you're smarter and more moral than Jesus/Mohammad (considered the 2 greatest of all time, by many), I'm convinced, and as a modern Secular Humanist you would be able to actually act on your greatness,, and dwarf those two in your greatness. Just something to think about.

 

Why on earth would I be afraid?

I gave you historical information about why girls did not marry before puberty and you counter with a personal insult???

 

The main point isn't as much about did a desert warlord, or did not a desert warlord, rape a child, the real point is that religious people like you (and every Muslim I've ever asked that of) DEFEND PEDOPHILIA, constantly, because religion has done something to you! Please realize that as a modern Secular Humanist you would not be AFRAID to simply speak the truth (the TRUTH is that you do condemn pedophilia of Mohammad, but religion keeps you from being honest.)

 

You're afraid to condemn the immoral acts of a prophet. Here, let me prove that to you: if, repeat if, jesus did accept slavery (you and I will never know 100% for sure, I'll admit) would you condemn him for that? I would, because religion has not robbed my common sense. Would you? Or would you sign a petition to make slavery LEGAL today?....which is it, you can't have it both ways like religionists always want to have.

You can't condemn Mohammad even if he, hypothetically, was a pedophile, can you!!!!!!!!!!?????????

- - - Updated - - -

Afraid of their "hell".

 

That's the deflection that I would say if I couldn't condemn pedophilia of Mohammad (even a hypothetical example of his pedophilia.)
Am I the only moral person on this forum, or can other people condemn Mohammad, if, repeat if, he did have sex with little Aisha?

 

I don't condemn based on hypotheticals.

Nothing good comes out of demonizing anyone's religion with lies... Doesn't matter if you are Jewish, or Christian or Muslim.

 

Then condemn Mohammad if he did have sex with a child. It's not really that hard.

 

Hypothetically, you could be a pedophile.. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

 

I rest my case! Religion causes people to not even be able to make BASIC moral judgments, they steadfastly refuse to do what's morally right! Since religion can't do that, it's future is doomed.

- - - Updated - - -

I would condemn myself if I was a pedophile! I condemn Mohammad if he was a pedophile! I condemn Jesus because he approved of torture. You can't, because religion causes good people to not be so good.

 

When it's hypothetical it's not a lie, it's a test of your morality, where the possibly disputed facts in the case are removed, to see how you really feel about the underlying issue.

Modern Secular Humanism 1
Religion 0

- - - Updated - - -

Am I the only one who see the hypocricy inherent in religion here?

 

Excuse me.. People make basic judgments every day and most adults want information before they do.. They don't operate on hypotheticals and ignorance of the facts.

 

If you went back in a time machine, and you saw that Mohammad was ready to violate little Aisha, would you try to stop him because his behavior would of course be disgusting and vile? I can clearly say "yes, of course!", because modern Secular Humanism is the most moral belief system ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Then prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

I never dreamed I'd be arguing whether pedophilia is morally repugnant with a good moral person. Religion MUST be discredited, folks.

 

But using a hypothetical about your pedophilia unfairly associates you with the pathology, so people of good conscience wouldn't do that. It would be unfair to you.
If you want to know if I, for instance, condemn slavery I will quickly say yes. Asking if I would condemn Mother Theresa, Ghandi or Jesus if they were slave owners adds nothing to the question. It simply unnecessarily taints them with no purpose.
It is a dishonest tactic.
If MSH is the most moral philosophy, stop the hypotheticals. They undermine that argument.

 

If jesus did accept slavery, then would you condemn him as being immoral on that one issue, bruce? It's an easy question. If he was too stupid to understand that slavery was morally wrong, then of course he's clearly not divine at all. A divine being would be smarter and more moral than us mere mortals, of course.

 

Don't edit my post. You really need to confront the meat of it.