they also kill the man huh? a 16 year old child abuse victim was sexual abused from age 13, she was hung, the 52 year old man got 99 lashes. now tell me what one still walks on earth and is breathing? your religion is rotten to the core, your religious leaders do not condemn the the actions of a child abuser, the hang the victim.
It's rediculous how he says that like it actually makes sense. So let's see, a dirty old man rapes a child who can't do anything to defend herself and they also kill the man. In civilized societies they would only kill the man if anyone. Typically such people are tossed in prison for a very long time. But hey, according to gworld women are just for sex and once they're used improperly they're not good for anything any way so also killing the man makes sense. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Muslims (and their apologists) make Muslims look bad. How does one with a straight face justify putting a vicitim to death? And yet in civilized societies they rise above the hatred and succeed in life. The Civil Rights movement succeeded because the leaders condemned the violence and preached and lived peace. Ghandi was an inspiration for his people because he lived peace and as a result earned respect from around the world. MLK did not victimize people and then claim to be a victim. People could see the wrongs they were doing to blacks and also see that the blacks were doing no wrong in return. Some did but they were quickly condemned by those who lived peace. It's hard for blacks to succeed because they get labeled "Uncle Toms." A racist term that doesn't come from whites but from blacks. Bill Cosby had quite a bit to say to blacks who just make excuses for not succeeding while not actually trying. Muslims on the other hand just make excuses for murder and blame the victims. The view of Muslims would change greatly if they'd just hold peace rallies condeming people who murder in their name. But, that will never happen because the majority of Muslims support the terrorists. I've yet to see a Muslim come on these forums and condemn terrorism without a "BUT" MLK never said "BUT." Ghandi never said "BUT." That's why they succeeded and Islam fails.
This is ridicolous, why dont you all agree on this point? Can't you just go with your own religion, if you have any. Personally, I do not care if somebody is a christian/musliman or jew, or anything, infact what I care most about is how the person is, and by the way for all the swedish talk, you all seem to think of it as a country full of racists, that is not how it is, that's just the media. Now you're thinking why? Why, it is simple these stuff earns a lot of $$$$, spreading rumours, they say rosengård is a very dangerous place, bla bla just cut the bullshit, it's a normal place, because of the majority are foreign borned the media went to that place, there's another city in Sweden where the criminality is higher, why was this city never named on this thread? I am speaking as I am a Swedee, and I know how the life is here, I don't see any point why opening this thread at all, you are just getting wild over here, cut the talking, after all we are all humans, and we reserve to have all the rights and the same value, no human has higher value, at all. Enough said
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467360,00.html Medieval societies are awesome. But Ghandi did say that the jews should hand themselves over to their German butchers. http://www.triviahalloffame.com/gandhi.htm
First- if you take your head out of your a*s for a minute and actually read what is posted, you could see that my post was in response to lorien and sexual relationship outside of marriage. Second- it is not my religion and I think all religions are equally stupid. I am just posting about reality in response to those who use religion discussions as an excuse for their hatred and bigotry. Third- I have been looking your at BS posts for awhile and I have seen women with the same mentality before. Usually they fit in one of the below categories: A) You had an Arab or Turk boyfriend who cheated on you or just left you. B) Your girlfriends have boyfriends that are foreigners but they don't pay any attention to you. C) You have a bigot as boyfriend and being a bigot yourself is a way for you be accepted by him and his friends. What category do you fit in?
so you are saying the girl was married to the 52 year old guy? it was child sexual abuse and they hung the child victim. the reality is they hung a 16 year old sexual abuse victim and let the 52 year old pervert off with 99 lashes. ha ha ha i'm lesbain, now you can go stick ya head back up your ass where it's always been.
No, I am saying that we weren't even discussing that case. You are discussing the question from 2 pages before. Have you seen the movie rain man? Do you remember the part that Tom cruise says he (his brother, Dustin Huffman) is a moron and probably answering a question from an hour ago. You remind me of his character in the movie. He had autism, what is your excuse? Read the above, your answer is not even related to what I posted. Case B then. Your friends are busy playing with foreigners and they don't play with you.
Okay, that's the last straw. "I've had all I can stands. I can't stands no more." Biotry is when one is intolerant of any opinion or ideal than their own. Prejudice, is "pre-judice" i.e. pre-judging of something. I have long ago decided that salads without dressing, croûtons, or bacon bits, but high in vegetable toppings such as pickled beats, and peppers, are healthier for me than double bacon tipple cheese grease burgers. So if I decide to eat a healthy meal, and I am given the option between the two, I won't debate endlessly over which is healthier, as I have already "pre-judged" that decision, and thus am prejudiced in favor of the salad, and against the hamburger. Prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing, as the above illustrates. If I had to judge which of the above foods was healthier every time I decided to eat a healthy meal, I'd never have the time to eat. It is, however, important that we look at our prejudices every once in a while, when confronted with a dissenting opinion, or new information about a given case. Perhaps someone informs me that the salad is contaminated and thus I'd better go with the burger. Well if the salad is contaminated, it's no longer healthy, but I might need to decide which is worse, the type of contamination on the salad, or the animal fat and cholesterol in the hamburger. Generally, by generalizing "this type of salad" and "this type of burger" I can make an informed decision -once- ahead of time, rather than making a sloppy decision and debate over and over again. So while some people may be prejudiced against or for a certain group of people, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bigotry is a bad thing.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea. 2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others. http://www.answers.com/topic/prejudice you are welcome to do more research of how the word is used today
That just shows how you read things without considered what was meant. This basically explains why *you lot* are so hard. Gandhi was pacifist, and even Jesus himself said something along the lines of "If someone strikes you, turn and offer them the other cheek" See where I'm going? And whoever said the majority of Muslims support terrorists, you're a fucking retard. Seriously, WHERE do you get this shit? Where did you conduct your field research?
Yes. I am aware of that. I am referring to the use in regards to 1a, and 1b. A preconceived preference or idea (non-dressing salads are healthier than double bacon cheese burgers), or a adverse judgment or opinion formed before hand (double bacon cheese burgers are unhealthy, when compared with no dressing salads).
New American Standard Bible, found at bible.com Passage Luke 6:28-31 (same translation, same website): He says to let people take from you certain things, and to let them strike you upon the cheek, but then to offer the other cheek to them. While this is a message of non-violence, it is also one of pragmatism, and non-materialsm. In any of the above instances, no permanent harm was done to the person in question. In the case of the robe, someone is bringing legal challenge saying that you owe them a debt. Which is better, for you to fight this, giving money to advocates, or to make sure that all of your debts are settled and that everyone knows you make sure you return more than you must, if there is a question of debt? Of course in Jesus's time, if you brought suit in court, and you lost, you were given the punishment that would have been heeped upon the person you brought suit against. In the case of turning the other cheek, this is a prime example of a quality we often view as laudable self confidence. Someone strikes you across the face, then then pull yourself strait, slowly, refuse to let them goad you into a fight, and then turn the other cheek, inviting them to strike you again, showing self control, and that they did not wound you seriously. Many people will, at that point, be cowed, and back away. Or, if they backhanded you, demeaning you, they then strike you on the other cheek, with the front of their hand, which leads to them being forced to confirm you as their social equal, rather than their social inferior. So in my opinion, this lesson clearly exhorts people not to use violence when it will potentially demean you, but rather to elivate yourself by taking other actions which are not violent. Yet this is also the man who turned over money changing tables in a temple, and said that he would rather board up and close the temple than allow people to make sacrifices of diseased animals. Matthew 21:12-13 Non-resistance and pacifism is an admirable quality and tactic, but they are not always the answer. Finally, which is better? To let harm be done to your possessions and your body; or to do harm to your self, to your soul, and to your church? I am not Jesus. I don't know what he would say, or do in the modern age, but I have yet to see in the bible where he advocates suicide, or condones letting someone simply kill you without good purpose behind it. He gives himself up to be killed, yes, but that is so that all of us may be forgiven our sins if we believe in him, and the father.