Muslim magazine journalists pretended to be Roman Catholics :D

And yet, you still ignore when I say that the practices against Aboriginals was not good.

And yet, you say its a democratic country. Which is it? If all the Christians in Malaysia are killed or thrown into reservations and the remaining Muslims agree that they have a nice Islamic society all to themselves, it would be a democratic society. And yet in 1400 years they haven''t done so. Why? Why aren't the Malaysians more like the Australians?
 
No, dear, that's just the hysterical, stupid, or dishonest.
:rolleyes:

And it continues..

I would even venture to suggest that you don't notice the other occasions because they're not spectacular enough.
I noticed them.

Probably why I think you are a hypocrit.

Sam said:
And yet, you say its a democratic country. Which is it? If all the Christians in Malaysia are killed or thrown into reservations and the remaining Muslims agree that they have a nice Islamic society all to themselves, it would be a democratic society. And yet in 1400 years they haven''t done so. Why? Why aren't the Malaysians more like the Australians?
I guess they are more enlightened. Thankfully we have not reached the point of enlightenment where we start burning down churches and denying people the right to a religion of their choice.
 
Thankfully we have not reached the point of enlightenment where we start burning down churches and denying people the right to a religion of their choice.

No the aborigines had no churches to burn, thank God. Just children to take away. You think that would work on Christians in Malaysia? Will they become as amenable to a different culture and religion if their children are taken away from them?

How did you guys get them to stop resisting?
 
So its okay to pee on the Kabaa? Its just a rock. It wont care. Im just wondering where "the line" is for you.

Sure why not? Why not take a crap as well? Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
 
Sure why not? Why not take a crap as well? Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

That would actually put a smile on my dial, but Im very easy to amuse... small things and all that.

I concur with your point, its just waffle and wine and can be spat out, and I am glad you agree with mine, the Kabaa is just a rock and you can pee and crap on it :)
 
The Kaaba is actually a room, but yeah, same logic

Yeah, you are right, I do appritate your correction of me and your lack of hypocrisy here. Im not being sarcastic if thats what you are wondering, I am being sincere.

By calling it a rock my mind was thinking about the 3 black stones that are worshiped inside the Kabaa. However, strictly speaking you are right and it is a room.
 
They have bathrooms under the Kaaba, its not a big deal.

And no the Hajar Aswad is not worshipped, it is revered as a sign of unity. The rock was placed there as a sign of the ummah from the constitution of Medina

Muhammad-black-stone-kaaba.jpg


A diplomatic coup, so to say
 
Oh scifes, please.

Now, you wrote this: but, if something is right, and the rest is wrong, then laws are there to enforce that which is absolutely right

Could you explain what you meant by this and how it fits into said conversation. See, when I read this I'm starting to so overturns of racism-like ideology spilling out of that sentence.

As a Hypothetical EXAMPLE: Think about how it would be to live in a Fundamentalist Christian community where it's ILLEGAL for you to convert to Islam. Where Christians who convert to Islam are threatened, jailed and even MURDERED. And then, to justify this behavior someone (who just so happens to be Christian) says, well scifes, if something is right (the Bible), and the rest is wrong (the Qur'an), then laws are there to enforce that which is absolutely right (Christianity).

How do you think that would make YOU feel. What if your Mosque was burned to the ground for the crime of using the word Allah. Suppose the Christians, who used the word Allah to refer to the One God 600 years BEFORE Muslims, used that as their logic. We used it first - therefor you can't. See, you can't argue with logic like that. Because it isn't logical. It's illogical and bigoted. But, the Christian can't see that. Because they truly think the Bible is Perfect, the Qur'an is bullshit, and you shouldn't use the word Allah because it may trick good Christians into following you to hell.

Plain enough?
yes yes yes i get it trust me i do, but what you fail at seeing is that while self righteousness is wrong most of the time(because few deserve it and many claim it), it still is worthy of one or some, to try and get this across to you, YOU imagine a world where half the world are born crazy, and they're strong enough to enforce their illogical laws, will you agree to have the law half logical and half not? for the sake of diversity and colorfulness and tolerance?

this of course is an extreme example, to show that you can't always play the tolerance card, and when everyone tries to play the "intolerance of what's wrong" card, while they might be all wrong, in that neither of them is correct and the rest wrong, there IS a possibility that one of them IS right and the rest wrong, making him the only one who has the right to play said card, even if all are raising it.
 
so what do you know of the verse's meanings?

I know that it's often interpreted as freedom of initial religion, but that it can also be read by conservative Muslims as a rationale for the persecution of apostates and forcible conversion.

Frankly, Geoff, I didn't think it required magick. Usually, with things like this, literacy suffices: #2046016/5

Am I meant to take note of that passing reference, compared to Sam's bold attribution of cannibalism? This, then, is as much evidence as you can possibly muster to accuse me of bigotry via the selective taking of offense - a parameter which, it must also be added, you are singularly unable to judge along with my mood? This is it? I change my position: your posts in this thread - as you put it about my 'bigotry' - show your own stupidity. And, if you don't like the epithet, then stop casting them about yourself.

Funny, that. For the most part, that's what S.A.M.'s been doing to other people.

Really? Because it's what I do to her. Odd, these circles.

And some of my colleagues are convinced that this is arguing in bad faith. Are you admitting to arguing in bad faith?

Too funny. What exactly have your colleagues? Was it on the sekrit mod forum, or here? What is their argument for bad faith? Do I agree that it is, or with any of the specifics of their arguments? I realize this is sort of a touchstone for you - the comparative illusion of your own honesty and the need to think all opposition inherently dishonest in a plead to a superego that even Narcissus would have taken a step back from - but I think you ought to realize that your argument needs to bow to reality.

I'm sure I've said this before: I was elected.

Not so shocking. What is a little ironically amusing is your persistence as the Moderator of Ethics. This is what I was attempting to convey.

How can I revert to something I've never been?

And thankyou - this was the precisely the response I was looking for.

So when I bawl Sam out for her ignorance - and at the same time you for you own - it has not the most remote basis in your imagined 'bigotry' against Muslims, since you yourself are not a Muslim.

Done, as they say, and done.
 
I know that it's often interpreted as freedom of initial religion, but that it can also be read by conservative Muslims as a rationale for the persecution of apostates and forcible conversion.
that all?
the first article i came across cave six possible explanations:D
 
John 6: 52-56:
He who eats my flesh and drinks my’ blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Sounds like cannibalism to me, if not for the blood part of it, then eating the flesh till the second coming could have had a different interpretation.

From some loony on the internet:

Why Can't Evangelicals and Protestants take Catholic Communion (Eucharist)?

Occasionally, an Evangelical is at a Catholic mass, perhaps for a marriage or funeral. Some feel the Catholic Church is prideful or snobby for to not allowing non-Catholics to join Communion. However, we do let some non-Catholics celebrate communion with us. Most Eastern Orthodox Christians are welcome. So it's not about having an "exclusive club." We would love everybody to be in a position to receive the Eucharist. (Jn 6:56) Saint Paul says:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)

We think it is quite serious to consume the Eucharist without believing ("discerning") that it is the Body of Jesus. It is a kind of desecration. We don't want to see people hurt themselves that way, and we don't want to be held accountable before God for not paying attention to what he had ordered us to do in Scripture. It would banalize the center of our faith. We cannot pretend that there is unity by compromising what we believe is the Body of our Lord, the source and summit of our faith. We pray for the day when all Christians will be in full unity. I have a full article on why the Church refuses communion to some Christians here.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm

And, once again:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.


Well Geoff, you're fucked.
 
I did read it. It said that the journalists posed as Roman Catholics and took communion. They were investigating reports of illegal conversion to Christianity.

Leaving aside the question of the morality of the law in the first place - and I expect that our much-esteemed interlocutor of Ethics would have much to say about such a law...or would have had much to say about such a a law, if it bore on their conception of Ethics as it relates to this issue - what abominable terrors are the journalists actually interested in investigating? The terrifying act of...apostasy? Good heavens! (We leave Sam's issue of the untouchables as untouchable itself, since Sam hasn't demonstrated any logical or factual connection between the conversion of untouchables and Malays...or, more distantly, of a connection between the conversion of untouchables and the oppression of local Malay Christians en masse). Quite a fearsome concept. The journalists are the moral equivalent of Leni Riefenstahl.

I'm holding Michael and Geoff to their own standards.

Then, madam, in your hypocrisy, disingenuousness and red-herring trails, you have failed.

S.A.M., they're presuming the worst...

I mean, did I miss something? I have yet to see it established that these are government agents, so I must have overlooked something. What did I overlook?

Oh! You overlooked the mention of the big cupcake party that the not-at-all-religio-fascist government of Malaysia was planning for them! I mean, I appreciate that it's not in the article, but it's as strongly implied as your 'observations' about Michael's post:

Because, obviously, Muslim journalists only ever investigate stories because they're government agents spying on people for retribution. They're Muslims, so there could be no other reason for being a journalist, right? I mean, that's how it works with you swinophobic turbanites, right?

Oh, yes: this is precisely what Michael was saying. Exactly! Not "It seems quite suspicious that journalists are running about investigating oppressed religious minorities in a religious fascist nation", but "Muslims only become journalists to persecute people of other faiths." And you're right: what they did - and the overt mention of wafer spitting, just to make sure that you didn't get the wrong idea about what we were doing there, it doesn't appear suspicious at all.

Or at least no more suspicious than your intellectual dishonesty on this thread.

Oops. Did it again. Ah well.
 
that all?
the first article i came across cave six possible explanations:D

Precisely.

John 6: 52-56:
He who eats my flesh and drinks my’ blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Sounds like cannibalism to me, if not for the blood part of it, then eating the flesh till the second coming could have had a different interpretation.

Then you clearly have limited powers of discernment, in the meaning of the action, and in the meaning of the OP article.

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Well Geoff, you're fucked.

Egads! Really? I am? Fascinating!

How so?
 
Precisely.



Then you clearly have limited powers of discernment, in the meaning of the action, and in the meaning of the OP article.



Egads! Really? I am? Fascinating!

How so?

Is the Pope catholic?

Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy
Again, a priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today.


Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy Lanciano, Italy -- 8th century A.D.
A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit)
"Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy."

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html


Discern away as you will. :p
 
Is the Pope catholic?

I'm given to think so.

Discern away as you will. :p

Oh, well if an 8th century scholar says so, it bloody must be.

you know all six of them?:bugeye:

besides, what's your point in all this? are you saying they wanna kill people so they're looking for leeway from the verse?

No, that some of those interpretations are supremacist, so that they wanna kill people who won't follow their religion or just shut the hell up and take it.
 
John 6: 52-56:
He who eats my flesh and drinks my’ blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Sounds like cannibalism to me, if not for the blood part of it, then eating the flesh till the second coming could have had a different interpretation.

From some loony on the internet:



And, once again:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.


Well Geoff, you're fucked.

well techinacally since jesus was a divine figure and not regarded as human it wouldn't be cannibalism
 
Last edited:
I mean, did I miss something? I have yet to see it established that these are government agents, so I must have overlooked something. What did I overlook?

The publication that the reporters work for is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UMNO, which is the largest political party in Malaysia and one that has played a dominant role in their politics since independence. It has a platform of Malay cultural supremacy as well as Islamic supremacy, is a driving force behind the laws there that reflect that agenda, etc. The magazine in question is an overtly partisan outlet, and its employees should be considered as such.

This is probably a good time to note that a great many countries - including ones a lot closer to home than Malaysia - do not have what Americans would consider a free press, in the sense of being independent. And that the presumption on our part that any news organization is, or at least strives to be, indepedent of political power is a dangerous one. This holds both abroad and at home, where our media is being steadily politicized and partisanized, often under the direction of immigrants from places where partisan media is the norm.

Because, obviously, Muslim journalists only ever investigate stories because they're government agents spying on people for retribution.

There are no "journalists" in this story, Muslim or otherwise. To be a journalist, you have to serve as an independent monitor on power. In my book, this disqualifies paid political operatives. These guys are arms of the state - or party, anyway - if unofficial ones.

Frankly, I find presumptions to the contrary to be somewhat baffling. This publication makes FOX News look independent. I mean, at least FOX News isn't owned outright by the Republican party.
 
Back
Top