Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story

Religions > Atheism > Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 13 of 19

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Matt"
Date:	14 Jan 2008 11:31:09 PM
Object:	Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story

On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, Kangarooistan <kangarooistan@gmail.com> wrote:
Let us examine the Holy record of the Prophet Mohammed and his darling
bride, Aisha (Peace Be Upon Them Both):
SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 7, Number 88: Narrated 'Ursa: Mohammed (p.b.u.h.)
The Prophet (when He was 53 years old) wrote the marriage contract with
'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her
while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years
(i.e. till his death).
Now, you may be wondering "Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was
only 6 and then wait until she was 9 to have sexual intercourse?" - Lets
go to the wisdom of the Shi'a Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defined the
following limits and consequences for adult sexual activity with
children (roughly translated from Arabic):
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl
is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from
having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual
acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having
intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed
a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged.
If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for
her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four
permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children
Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
An English translation of this wonderful work can be purchased on
Amazon.com:
Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophic, Social and
Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-
553-14032-9
http://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Ayatollah-Khomeini-Political-
Philosophical/dp/0553140329/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200375019
&sr=8-9
.

User: "Matt"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	20 Jan 2008 08:12:59 AM

David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fd96517783d42498b01d@news.bigpond.com:

In article <Xns9A2ABFCADD733mattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fbf8f08ea7cc8a98aff3@news.bigpond.com:

In article <6fSdnfo5jbx8mgzanZ2dnUVZ8s6inZ2d@pipex.net>,
JohnSmith@ukgroupnews.com writes...

Fair enough. Each to his own.
But just understand that Islam is totalitarian in a way that none
of the other religions are.
When Jesus said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give to
God that which is God's", that is whole basis for many Western
countries where there is a separation of Church and State.
That gives enough wiggle room to allow Freethinkers, different
religions, Homosexuals, Atheists etc.

I think you will find that in ancient Israel the King was separate
entity from the priesthood. The concept of separation between
Church and State arose well before the time of Jesus.

In contrast, in Islam there is no difference between Church and
State, which means that in OIC countries they take it almost as
treacherous act if your not a Muslim.

Does this explain why Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State, and
also the head of the Anglican Church?

Under the Law of Moses, the Levites (the priesthood) were in effect,
the government - all the other tribes paid the levites 10% (collected
the taxes), and the levites were the ones who interpreted the laws
and enforced the laws - they were literally, judge, jury and
executioners.

The powers of the King generally related to defense (the army),
foreign affairs and war.

You have rather a naive view of biblical history:

"Following Israel's establishment of their nation in Palestine, the
political structure remained decentralized for several generations.
However, eventually, crises-internal and external-brought forth a
strong desire for a more centralized system, anchored around a king.

Ultimately, in what follows, even the greatest of the kings, David,
acts with profound violence. He takes his captain Uriah's wife, the
beautiful Bathsheba, and sees to it that Uriah meets his death in
battle.

What follows are several centuries of a sad litany of one corrupt king
following another (with few exceptions). David's act of taking becomes
the norm."

(http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/binserts/b2.html)

Again, I am talking about what Judiasm taught according to the Torah
(the law of Moses), not whether the Jews always obeyed or followed the
law.
.

User: "B J Foster"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	18 Jan 2008 03:12:52 PM

John Smith wrote:

I have an easier method:
1. Ask the 'expert' (the mullah) what age it is acceptable to have sex
2. Ask a medical professional what age is acceptable
In the light of #2, ask the 'expert' to justify his position.

Do you see me reading the Koran or the Bible? No way!

Fair enough. Each to his own.
But just understand that Islam is totalitarian in a way that none of the
other religions are.
When Jesus said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give to God that
which is God's", that is whole basis for many Western countries where there
is a separation of Church and State.
That gives enough wiggle room to allow Freethinkers, different religions,
Homosexuals, Atheists etc.

You're attributing the separation of church and state to scripture?
I don't think that's correct. The church has always attempted to control
our lives - and to this day interferes in the political process. For
instance, those in the know are aware that John Howard had an unwritten
agreement with the major churches not to launch a national investigation
into paedophilia. The church itself has always come first, followed by
people and God.
Separation can never be attributed to the church - it is due to the
courageous actions of a few who stood up to the persecution and dogma.

In contrast, in Islam there is no difference between Church and State, which
means that in OIC countries they take it almost as treacherous act if your
not a Muslim.

Fungus shrivels when exposed to air and light.

The Egyptian Supreme Court just recently celebrated victory over the tiny
Bahai faith (utterly harmless as a group) - denying Bahai Egyptian citizens
the right to indicate their religion on their passport.
They have to put one of Muslim, Christian or Jew (or never leave the
country).

And I think in the years to come Australia will be facing the same problems
as most other Western nations on Muslims.
At the point you might want to form alliances with strange bedfellows just
to combat it.
Unless you want all your Sheila's in burkas and all Australias gay and
lesbian people stoned to death.

Quite the opposite. 50% of muslims are women. The Koran says nothing
about wearing burkas. And in any case, so what if they want to wear
burkas? Pick a substantive issue - like education and these women will
be your allies. Add the enlightened majority of men & guess what - you
have a majority against the narrow bigoted mullahs.
I never for one moment said that we should sacrifice our principles.

John Smith

User: "John Smith"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	19 Jan 2008 07:21:45 PM

But just understand that Islam is totalitarian in a way that none of the
other religions are.
When Jesus said "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, Give to God that
which is God's", that is whole basis for many Western countries where
there is a separation of Church and State.
That gives enough wiggle room to allow Freethinkers, different religions,
Homosexuals, Atheists etc.

You're attributing the separation of church and state to scripture?

Yes I am. It is the basis for it. All the founding fathers of most Western
nations know this.
In contrast (and I am not saying this as a put-down, it just is) in the 57
OIC countries, there is no division between church-and-state. That is why if
a Muslim becaome apostate in his own country, it is considered a crime
against the nation. (If you dont beleive this I can point out instances
where OIC countries have responded in court against Muslims decalring
themselves apostate).

I don't think that's correct. The church has always attempted to control
our lives - and to this day interferes in the political process.

Only for some countries, primarily where Roman Catholic is strongest e.g.
Ireland, Poland, Brazil.
But my primary meaning is that the church does not LEGISLATE - only the
government in a country does that.
In terms of the "church interfering in the political process", suppose a
Government was going to pass dubious laws on the mentally disabled.
The mentally disabled cannot speak up for themselves - would you like the
church to stay silent?
I would not want churches to so interfere that they actually legislate. That
is wrong in my opinion.
But I do want churches to act as consciences of a nation.

For instance, those in the know are aware that John Howard had an
unwritten agreement with the major churches not to launch a national
investigation into paedophilia. The church itself has always come first,
followed by people and God.

Well that is wrong.
One of the specifics of Christianity is that humans have fallen.
And in particular those in the higher echelons of the churches are just as
fallen as anyone else.
If the church leaders were right before me, I would ask them , "If Jesus
was before you right now, do you think he would agree with the policy of
trying to sweep paedophilia in the church under the rug?"
The answer of course is no. Have a look at Revelation 2-3. These were
messages to real churches round about 100AD. They were not uncritical, sweep
mess under rug.

Separation can never be attributed to the church...

Yes it can. Because the theological support has always been there.
If the theological support was non-existent you would be correct.
Sometimes there can be periods when churches go against NT doctrine.
But given time there will be Christians who stand up and say, "this is
wrong, this is not in line here, here and here".
Martin Luther took offence with the Roman Catholic Church over the selling
of indulgences
Wilberforce took offence over Slavery and campaigned as a MP in Britain for
20 years. Eventually Slavery was abolished
Martin Luther King was offended over segregation and racist attitudes in
America
They were all Christians.
There have been millions who have stood up, because they were convinced some
Goverment policy or Official church policy was not in line with NT doctrine.

And I think in the years to come Australia will be facing the same
problems as most other Western nations on Muslims.
At the point you might want to form alliances with strange bedfellows
just to combat it.
Unless you want all your Sheila's in burkas and all Australias gay and
lesbian people stoned to death.

Quite the opposite. 50% of muslims are women. The Koran says nothing about
wearing burkas.

You are correctabout the Quran. It just talks about modesty.
But the hadiths do talk more extensively about covering up of women.

And in any case, so what if they want to wear burkas?

No problem. That will be the first issue. It is where Turkey is now.
But 20-30 years afterwards, I can guarantee there will be rumblings of
making the OPTIONAL, COMPUSORY.
I take it you are aware of the police enforcing how women dress in Iran?
And I take it you are aware of the how women dress in Saudi Arabia is
compulsory?
And I take it that you are aware there are mobs in Basra, Iraq who will kill
women if not dressed conservatively?
And again, I am aware of women in Somali dressing more conservatively over
the past 5-10 years.
I have no problem with Muslim women wearing burkhas out of free choice in
Western countries _PROVIDING_ they are equally free not to wear them.
I see evidence of creeping Sharia in Western countries.

Pick a substantive issue - like education and these women will be your
allies. Add the enlightened majority of men & guess what - you have a
majority against the narrow bigoted mullahs.

Yes but it does not matter. The KEY POINT is whether the Quran backs the
Mullahs or the Women.
And you know what - it backs the mullahs.
That means even if the women win a temporary victory, they lay themselves
open to the charge of being Un-Islamic.
For 10 solid years, the UN has been bleating about empowering women round
the globe.
It has a snowball chance in hell in ever empowering women in OIC countries
because the Islamic texts back the men in keeping a stranglehold over women.
There has never been much postive movement in this.
If it worked out that the Quran and the other holy books backed the women -
yes I think the chances would be good.
But such is not the case.
John Smith
.

User: "David Moss"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	20 Jan 2008 01:37:57 AM

In article <wYWdnU1b6P63Pw_anZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
JohnSmith@ukgroupnews.com writes...

I have no problem with Muslim women wearing burkhas out of free choice in
Western countries _PROVIDING_ they are equally free not to wear them.
I see evidence of creeping Sharia in Western countries.

How do you feel about men and women choosing to go naked in your local
shopping mall? Or when picking their kids up from the pre-school your
kids got to?
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.

User: "B J Foster"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	19 Jan 2008 09:17:31 PM

John Smith wrote:

You're attributing the separation of church and state to scripture?

Yes I am. It is the basis for it. All the founding fathers of most Western
nations know this.

I don't dispute this. At the same time, the emancipation of women has
not been brought about through organised religion. It has occurred
through individuals opposing religion. Today, despite laws in every
western country outlawing discrimination of every form, we still have
male priests, male mullahs and male rabbis.

In contrast (and I am not saying this as a put-down, it just is) in the 57
OIC countries, there is no division between church-and-state. That is why if
a Muslim becaome apostate in his own country, it is considered a crime
against the nation. (If you dont beleive this I can point out instances
where OIC countries have responded in court against Muslims decalring
themselves apostate).

I have no doubt that if there was no separation in Christian countries
then we would have the same problems.

I don't think that's correct. The church has always attempted to control
our lives - and to this day interferes in the political process.

Only for some countries, primarily where Roman Catholic is strongest e.g.
Ireland, Poland, Brazil.
But my primary meaning is that the church does not LEGISLATE - only the
government in a country does that.

In terms of the "church interfering in the political process", suppose a
Government was going to pass dubious laws on the mentally disabled.
The mentally disabled cannot speak up for themselves - would you like the
church to stay silent?

I would not want churches to so interfere that they actually legislate. That
is wrong in my opinion.
But I do want churches to act as consciences of a nation.

Agree. The churches (of whatever religion) can be a positive force. But
where is the Pope condemning George Bush for illegally occupying Iraq?
The Church's silence of this can be taken as tacit approval.

Well that is wrong.

Yes, it is wrong.

One of the specifics of Christianity is that humans have fallen.
And in particular those in the higher echelons of the churches are just as
fallen as anyone else.
If the church leaders were right before me, I would ask them , "If Jesus
was before you right now, do you think he would agree with the policy of
trying to sweep paedophilia in the church under the rug?"

Okay, so we agree that church leaders are mortal and are sinners like
everyone else.
But somehow the system allows them to avoid accountability before the
law. How do we fix this? Why are the police reluctant to enter the
monastaries and mosques and arrest these animals?
It's all very well for the Bishop to "turn the other cheek" but it
wasn't his cheek in the first place. Likewise the Ayatollah is not a mum
and has no empathy with nine-year-old girls, clearly. How do we flush
out these fuckwits and hold them accountable? Here, whilst it may be
more subtle (e.g. the pleas that it was an "isolated instance" and the
implicit plea to ignorance), the guy *responsible* was ultimately
elevated to the highest office in the land. How did this happen and how
can we prevent it - in the context of 'Caesar', i.e. earthly us?

The answer of course is no. Have a look at Revelation 2-3. These were
messages to real churches round about 100AD. They were not uncritical, sweep
mess under rug.

Separation can never be attributed to the church...

Yes it can. Because the theological support has always been there.
If the theological support was non-existent you would be correct.
Sometimes there can be periods when churches go against NT doctrine.
But given time there will be Christians who stand up and say, "this is
wrong, this is not in line here, here and here".

Martin Luther took offence with the Roman Catholic Church over the selling
of indulgences
Wilberforce took offence over Slavery and campaigned as a MP in Britain for
20 years. Eventually Slavery was abolished
Martin Luther King was offended over segregation and racist attitudes in
America
They were all Christians.
There have been millions who have stood up, because they were convinced some
Goverment policy or Official church policy was not in line with NT doctrine.

Closer to home, the Catholic church took the government to court over
detention of (Muslim) kids. Good on them. Ultimately Ruddock just
changed the law. Accountability works both ways - keeping the church out
of government actually strengthens its ability to be a conscience.

Quite the opposite. 50% of muslims are women. The Koran says nothing about
wearing burkas.

You are correctabout the Quran. It just talks about modesty.
But the hadiths do talk more extensively about covering up of women.

The old testament is the same. As you say, in the Muslim countries where
church and state were/are intertwined, the witchdoctors get to write the
law, and to insert literal bible-era male-dominated tribal conventions
into the law.
The underlying message is lost. Take it out of the tribal biblical era
context and the key underlying message is about reinforcing the
stability and cohesion of the family unit.
So not only was the original message biased (interpreted and written
down by a tribal male) but over time, the message has become more and
more corrupted.

And in any case, so what if they want to wear burkas?

And these women are not only victims in their own society, they are
*also* targets of neo-nazis and bigots.
And it's not just women:
"In February over 1,000 Nematollahi Sufis peacefully protesting against
an order to evacuate their place of worship in Qom were arrested".
Hundreds were injured by members of the security forces and members of
organized pro-government groups. In May, 52 Sufis, including two lawyers
representing the group, were sentenced to one year's imprisonment,
flogging and a fine, and the lawyers were banned from practising law. In
August, Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani issued a religious edict
designating Sufism as '"null and void'".
Several evangelical Christians, mostly converts from Islam, were
detained, apparently in connection with their religious activities.
� In September, Fereshteh Dibaj and her husband, Reza Montazemi, were
detained for nine days before being released on bail. Fereshteh Dibaj is
the youngest daughter of convert Mehdi Dibaj who was murdered in 1994
shortly after being released from prison where he had been held for nine
years for "apostasy".
Sixty-five Baha'is were detained during 2006 and five remained held at
the end of the year. In March Mehran Kawsari was released early from his
three-year prison sentence imposed in connection with an open letter
sent to the then President in November 2004.
In March, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
expressed concern about an October 2005 letter instructing various
government agencies to identify, and collect information about, Baha'is
in Iran.

I have no problem with Muslim women wearing burkhas out of free choice in
Western countries _PROVIDING_ they are equally free not to wear them.
I see evidence of creeping Sharia in Western countries.

Pick a substantive issue - like education and these women will be your
allies. Add the enlightened majority of men & guess what - you have a
majority against the narrow bigoted mullahs.

Yes but it does not matter. The KEY POINT is whether the Quran backs the
Mullahs or the Women.
And you know what - it backs the mullahs.
That means even if the women win a temporary victory, they lay themselves
open to the charge of being Un-Islamic.
For 10 solid years, the UN has been bleating about empowering women round
the globe.
It has a snowball chance in hell in ever empowering women in OIC countries
because the Islamic texts back the men in keeping a stranglehold over women.
There has never been much postive movement in this.

If it worked out that the Quran and the other holy books backed the women -
yes I think the chances would be good.
But such is not the case.

John Smith

User: "David Moss"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	18 Jan 2008 07:41:46 PM

In article <4790fee7$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
bjfoster@yahoo.com.au writes...

John Smith wrote:

I couldn't give a stuff. People 'study' this garbage for years and form
beliefs or otherwise.

Me too. I would rather not give a stuff as well.
I would like nothing better than to live in peace, enjoying the fat of the
land.
But because down the ages Muslims have frequently imposed their ideology on
non-Muslims, I _DO_ give a stuff.

And sure there are people here who from a propaganda point of view never
wish to say anything positive about Muslims.
But I wish to see and understand Islam as it really is, and understand and
know whatever Muslims dont tell non-Muslims.
Because i am 100% certain that in the next 30 years, Europe will face
internal wars (and there will be wars elsewhere) where native Europeans wake
up to the fact that Muslims have never given up on trying to turn all of
Europe into an Islamic state.

Now if you dont care, you can go your sweet way, but personally I think the
West is worth preserving even if the idiotic politicians still have not
cottened on to the threat we face.
And like in the Terminator there is no bargaining or reasoning they will
never back down or go away, not until all land on Earth is Islamic and all
non-Muslims are ruled by Muslims.

So I will spend a lot of time on Islam simply to understand the threat to
the West better.

John Smith

I accept what you say. Personally, I don't have the time to study a
whole lot of mumbo-jumbo.

I have an easier method:
1. Ask the 'expert' (the mullah) what age it is acceptable to have sex
2. Ask a medical professional what age is acceptable
In the light of #2, ask the 'expert' to justify his position.

An honest answer to both those questions would vary over time.
Unfortunately the answer you get may be distorted by religious dogma,
political correctness or simple expediency.
In the field of child protection today many decisions by recognised
authorities fly in the face of existing knowledge about child welfare.
This is one of the most difficult aspects of the work I do in this area.
Many good people burn out and leave the field because of it.

Do you see me reading the Koran or the Bible? No way!

I've read both, and a lot more volumes of what you call "mumbo jumbo"
besides. I find it best to inform my opinion.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.

User: "B J Foster"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	19 Jan 2008 04:34:56 AM

David Moss wrote:

In article <4790fee7$0$24086$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
bjfoster@yahoo.com.au writes...

John Smith wrote:

I couldn't give a stuff. People 'study' this garbage for years and form
beliefs or otherwise.

An honest answer to both those questions would vary over time.
Unfortunately the answer you get may be distorted by religious dogma,
political correctness or simple expediency.

#1 will never have an honest answer. It will always have a deep conflict
of interest, biased by dogma and tribal customs.
For example,
"15.7 The Complainant on the other hand contends that he told Dr
Hollingworth the details of the abuse, and that it involved repeated
criminal acts. Whilst the Complainant did not specify the period over
which the abuse took place, he says that nothing he said could possibly
have justified a belief that the abuse was one isolated incident".
If Dr Hollingworth (what is he a doctor of?) had the interests of the
kids at heart, he would have taken the trouble to study the phenomenon
known as 'paedophilia' and he would have been aware that:
- offenders are invariably repeat the crime
- the affliction is incurable
That he did not study the problem can be concluded to be negligence of
the highest order. At a personal moral level it is hard to see how he
could put the Church before kids. Is this the kind of Church that God
would want?
I would expect a similar answer from the Ayatollah on the question of
age of consent - thick with CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
In contrast #2 (the medical professional) will have very little bias
because the medical professional will have no conflict of interest and
you will get a straight answer.

In the field of child protection today many decisions by recognised
authorities fly in the face of existing knowledge about child welfare.

Fools occur everywhere. What do you mean by recognised authorities?
Science (or applied science) is not perfect, but I would trust the
opinion of a psychiatrist on the subject on sex before puberty. I would
not trust the opinion of a priest or mullah because that opinion is
coloured by:
a) competing objectives
b) subjective information (scripture)

This is one of the most difficult aspects of the work I do in this area.
Many good people burn out and leave the field because of it.

Do you have any examples?

Do you see me reading the Koran or the Bible? No way!

I've read both, and a lot more volumes of what you call "mumbo jumbo"
besides. I find it best to inform my opinion.

It's a question of priorities. I'm not saying that I won't read
scripture at all - I'm saying that tactically it's better the ask the
'scholars' - particularly the ones who makes insane rulings governing
every aspect of people's lives. I want these fuckwits to explain and to
stand by their opinions & subject themselves to the review of science
and commonsense.
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	15 Jan 2008 10:11:14 PM

On Jan 16, 9:29 am, "John Smith" <JohnSm...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote:

marriage 15 for girls and 18 for boys.

Yes but the legal age of marriage of girls in Iran is 9 - because that
follows what the paedophilic prophet did.

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah
13:16
If a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, he shall be stoned
because he "has humbled his neighbor's wife"; and she shall be stoned
because she "cried not" --Deut 22:23-24
So.......
Coz God sez it's OK in your silly medieval book of fairie tales, it
should be OK for me
to visit the people I don't like, and batter the babies to death?
Christianity and Islam are the same bloody religion you nutter.
Re-written and re-written and re-written to suit the sensibilities of
the times
and the culture. In modern Afganistan children still at the age of
six are
being married off, and the Christian COW are happily spending billions
defending the idiots. You lot removed Sadman Hussien, who shot most
Islam fundies he discovered. Why was that? Also, could you
enlightenme
why secular Turks and Christian USSA are lobbing missiles at Kurds?
Mark Addinall.

John Smith

User: "Mavisbeacon"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	16 Jan 2008 03:56:58 PM

"Addinall" <addinall@addinall.org> wrote in message
news:4a49e176-4424-4341-9b3d-41da5a9cad66@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 16, 9:29 am, "John Smith" <JohnSm...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote:

marriage 15 for girls and 18 for boys.

Yes but the legal age of marriage of girls in Iran is 9 - because that
follows what the paedophilic prophet did.

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah
13:16

Old testament. which is full of such comments and is BEFORE Christ!

If a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, he shall be stoned
because he "has humbled his neighbor's wife"; and she shall be stoned
because she "cried not" --Deut 22:23-24

So.......

Coz God sez it's OK in your silly medieval book of fairie tales, it
should be OK for me
to visit the people I don't like, and batter the babies to death?

This is not a Medieval book! The youngest writings of the Old Testament date
to about 300 BC! clearly "ancient" not from the Middle ages!
The New Testament dates (in an entire version ) to about 250 AD (again pre
medieval period) and the Latin vulgate version eventually compiled at the
very latest just as the Middle ages began.

Christianity and Islam are the same bloody religion you nutter.

You are misinformed. This is a very silly comment. Please care to support
it?

Re-written and re-written and re-written to suit the sensibilities of
the times
and the culture. In modern Afganistan children still at the age of
six are
being married off, and the Christian COW are happily spending billions
defending the idiots. You lot removed Sadman Hussien, who shot most
Islam fundies he discovered. Why was that? Also, could you
enlightenme
why secular Turks and Christian USSA are lobbing missiles at Kurds?

Well maybe because they serve Mommon and not God?
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	17 Jan 2008 02:33:46 AM

On Jan 17, 7:56=A0am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in message

news:4a49e176-4424-4341-9b3d-41da5a9cad66@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 16, 9:29 am, "John Smith" <JohnSm...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote:

marriage 15 for girls and 18 for boys.

Yes but the legal age of marriage of girls in Iran is 9 - because that=
follows what the paedophilic prophet did.

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah
13:16

Old testament. which is full of such comments and is BEFORE Christ!

Jesus was apparently big on the ideas however, being a Jew and all....

If a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, he shall be stoned
because he "has humbled his neighbor's wife"; and she shall be stoned
because she "cried not" --Deut 22:23-24

So.......

Coz God sez it's OK in your silly medieval book of fairie tales, it
should be OK for me
to visit the people I don't like, and batter the babies to death?

This is not a Medieval book!

Ectually it's a collection of medieval books. Short stories really.
Re-written, and re-written, and re-written to ghost the percieved
"good" of the times and culture.
A fairy story is still a fairy story.
And vortlet ous oure yeldinges: ase and we vorleteP oure yelderes,
and ne ous led na3t, in-to vondige, ac vri ous vram queade.
Polymaths on the net are such shits hey?

The youngest writings of the Old Testament date
to about 300 BC! clearly "ancient" not from the Middle ages!
The New Testament dates (in an entire version ) to about 250 AD (again pre=
medieval period) and the Latin vulgate version eventually compiled at the
very latest just as the Middle ages began.

What rubbish.

Christianity and Islam are the same bloody religion you nutter.

You are misinformed. This is a very silly comment. Please care to support
it?

Sure. Can you read a book every day for the next forty years?
(Why isn't that fourty?)

Re-written and re-written and re-written to suit the sensibilities of
the times
and the culture. =A0In modern Afganistan children still at the age of
six are
being married off, and the Christian COW are happily spending billions
defending the idiots. =A0You lot removed Sadman Hussien, who shot most
Islam fundies he discovered. =A0Why was that? =A0Also, could you
enlightenme
why secular Turks and Christian USSA are lobbing missiles at Kurds?

Well maybe because they serve Mommon and not God?

And yet we go to work on Moon Day, then on Tiw's Day, then on
Woden's Day, then on Thor's Day, then on Frig's Day and we have
Saturn's Day and the Sun's Day off.
Very fucking advanced indeed. Which pertikular God do you favour?
Mark Addinall.
.

User: "Arthur Brain"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	17 Jan 2008 02:51:55 AM

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:56=EF=BF=BDam, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote=

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in message

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah
13:16

Old testament. which is full of such comments and is BEFORE Christ!

Jesus was apparently big on the ideas however, being a Jew and all....

So what?
Our culture comes from Rome, not Jerusalem.
Our laws come from roman law, not those stupid old books.
Muslims on the other hand, get all their law from an even stupider
book than the books you refer to: the Koran - a collection of the
thoughts of an illiterate epileptic tribesman.

Ectually it's a collection of medieval books. Short stories really.
Re-written, and re-written, and re-written to ghost the percieved
"good" of the times and culture.

A fairy story is still a fairy story.

And vortlet ous oure yeldinges: ase and we vorleteP oure yelderes,
and ne ous led na3t, in-to vondige, ac vri ous vram queade.

Polymaths on the net are such shits hey?

Pfft. Confusing age with wisdom, yet again.

Christianity and Islam are the same bloody religion you nutter.

You are misinformed. This is a very silly comment. Please care to suppor=

it?

Sure. Can you read a book every day for the next forty years?
(Why isn't that fourty?)

Maybe it would take you forty years to do a simple bit of analysis -
the rest of us are perfectly aware that our romano-christian culture
has very little in common with the arabian religious cult started by
Mohammed.

And yet we go to work on Moon Day, then on Tiw's Day, then on
Woden's Day, then on Thor's Day, then on Frig's Day and we have
Saturn's Day and the Sun's Day off.

Very fucking advanced indeed. Which pertikular God do you favour?

Oh, gee, and I thought they were just names for days of the week - all
this time I've been subconsciously engaged in a smorgasbord of
polytheism.
Whereas the other idiots get down on their hands and knees 5 times per
day to bow down towards Mecca.
"Very fucking advanced indeed"
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	17 Jan 2008 08:42:30 PM

On Jan 17, 6:51=C2=A0pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:56=EF=BF=BDam, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wro=

te:

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in message

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah
13:16

Old testament. which is full of such comments and is BEFORE Christ!

Jesus was apparently big on the ideas however, being a Jew and all....

So what?

So, dipstick, if'n he was the King of the Jews, then I guess he had
a passable knowledge of the law, tenents, and testements of th Bible.
Being Son of God and all would give hime a pretty unrestricted
ISP account, or library card at least.

Our culture comes from Rome, not Jerusalem.

Our laws come from roman law, not those stupid old books.

Oh *****. Read some history instead of just dreaming it up.

Muslims on the other hand, get all their law from an even stupider
book than the books you refer to: the Koran - a collection of the
thoughts of an illiterate epileptic tribesman.

Which is mostly the Old Testament.

Ectually it's a collection of medieval books. =C2=A0Short stories really=

Re-written, and re-written, and re-written to ghost the percieved
"good" of the times and culture.

A fairy story is still a fairy story.

And vortlet ous oure yeldinges: ase and we vorleteP oure yelderes,
and ne ous led na3t, in-to vondige, ac vri ous vram queade.

Polymaths on the net are such shits hey?

Pfft. Confusing age with wisdom, yet again.

No. I'm smart. Very smart in fact. Smarter than you without
doubt.
I ectually research my own opinions. Sometimes I chuck my opinions
in the bin. Not often.

Christianity and Islam are the same bloody religion you nutter.

You are misinformed. This is a very silly comment. Please care to supp=

ort

it?

Sure. =C2=A0Can you read a book every day for the next forty years?
(Why isn't that fourty?)

Maybe it would take you forty years to do a simple bit of analysis -

Sometimes it does. How does water work? I'm still working on that
one.

the rest of us are perfectly aware that our romano-christian culture
has very little in common with the arabian religious cult started by
Mohammed.

Apart from the end of the Dark Ages?
Jesus wept, wot a moroney.....

And yet we go to work on Moon Day, then on Tiw's Day, then on
Woden's Day, then on Thor's Day, then on Frig's Day and we have
Saturn's Day and the Sun's Day off.

Very fucking advanced indeed. =C2=A0Which pertikular God do you favour?

Not very Roman are they? Twat.

Oh, gee, and I thought they were just names for days of the week - all
this time I've been subconsciously engaged in a smorgasbord of
polytheism.

Indeed you have. Accusing another culture of being "primitive" before
examining your own is xenophobic hubris.
Have a good Christmass did you?

Whereas the other idiots get down on their hands and knees 5 times per
day to bow down towards Mecca.
"Very fucking advanced indeed"

Eating a biccie and sipping wine pretending it is the flesh of your
GOD
and his BLOOD makes a bit more sense does it?
I'd like to hear that justification.
Mark (the very bright) Addinall.
.

User: "Arthur Brain"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	23 Jan 2008 03:40:01 AM

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:51 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

Not relevant to christian culture, descended from roman culture, and
for whom "Jesus" had nothing to do with Judaism.

Our culture comes from Rome, not Jerusalem.

Our laws come from roman law, not those stupid old books.

Oh *****. Read some history instead of just dreaming it up.

Unlike some other late-starters around here, I have done just that -
our culture comes from Rome, our laws come from Rome.
Some bible-waffle has been injected by the puritans and various other
looney sects over the years, but none of that alters the substance of
our rome-descended civilisation.

Muslims on the other hand, get all their law from an even stupider
book than the books you refer to: the Koran - a collection of the
thoughts of an illiterate epileptic tribesman.

Which is mostly the Old Testament.

Some of it is Old Testament, as seen through the filter of a
primitive, illiterate epileptic paedophile's thought processes, and
much more of it is inane, insane gibberish.
So, pretty much all of it is in keeping with the Old Testament's
general thrust, then...

Polymaths on the net are such shits hey?

Pfft. Confusing age with wisdom, yet again.

No. I'm smart. Very smart in fact. Smarter than you without
doubt.

Yeah, so smart you confuse the geological process that creates coal
with the process that creates diamonds.

I ectually research my own opinions. Sometimes I chuck my opinions
in the bin. Not often.

How's Abiotic Oil going? In the bin yet?
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	28 Jan 2008 11:09:22 PM

On Jan 23, 7:40 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:51 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

Not relevant to christian culture, descended from roman culture, and
for whom "Jesus" had nothing to do with Judaism.

What?

Our culture comes from Rome, not Jerusalem.

Our laws come from roman law, not those stupid old books.

Oh *****. Read some history instead of just dreaming it up.

Unlike some other late-starters around here, I have done just that -
our culture comes from Rome, our laws come from Rome.

Some bible-waffle has been injected by the puritans and various other
looney sects over the years, but none of that alters the substance of
our rome-descended civilisation.

You live on a different planet don't you?

Muslims on the other hand, get all their law from an even stupider
book than the books you refer to: the Koran - a collection of the
thoughts of an illiterate epileptic tribesman.

Which is mostly the Old Testament.

Some of it is Old Testament, as seen through the filter of a
primitive, illiterate epileptic paedophile's thought processes, and
much more of it is inane, insane gibberish.

So, pretty much all of it is in keeping with the Old Testament's
general thrust, then...

Polymaths on the net are such shits hey?

Pfft. Confusing age with wisdom, yet again.

No. I'm smart. Very smart in fact. Smarter than you without
doubt.

Yeah, so smart you confuse the geological process that creates coal
with the process that creates diamonds.

No. I asked you to describe the mechanisms and you ran away.

I ectually research my own opinions. Sometimes I chuck my opinions
in the bin. Not often.

How's Abiotic Oil going? In the bin yet?

Not even close to the bin. A paper published recently describes
experimental demonstration of the foregoing theoretical predictions,
whereby laboratory-pure solid marble (CaCO3), iron oxide (FeO), wet
with triple-distilled water, are subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar
and temperatures to 2000 C. With no contribution of either
hydrocarbons or biological detritus, the CaCO3-FeO-H2O system
spontaneously generates, at the high pressures predicted
theoretically, the suite of hydrocarbons characteristic of natural
petroleum.
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
So, how much petroleum have you formed by squashing lizards and
cycads?
Published the results anywhere interesting?
Here's an interesting paper for those that can still think.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
=2E " Introduction.
With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit
spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of
temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one
should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that
might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there
exists no such evidence.
Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often
promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute "evidence" that
natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological
matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to
scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.
The claims which purport to argue for some connection
between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two
classes: the "look-like/come-from" claims; and the
"similar(recondite)-properties/come-from" claims."
[...]
and a reading list:
1 M. H. Studier, R. Hayatsu and E. Anders, "Organic compounds
in carbonaceous chondrites", Science, 1965, 149, 1455-1459.
2 B. Nagy, Carbonaceous Meteorites, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975.
3 G. P. Vdovykin, Carbonaceous Matter of Meteorites (Organic
Compounds, Diamonds, Graphite), Nauka Press, Moscow, 1976.
4 B. Mason, "The carbonaceous chondrites", Space Science
Review, 1963, 1, 621-640.
5 C. A. Ponnamperuma, "The carbonaceous meteorites", in
Carbonaceous Meteorites, ed. B. Nagy, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, 747.
6 J. D. Bernal, "Significance of carbonaceous meteorites in
theories on the origin of life", Nature, 1961, 190, 129-131.
7 E. Gelphi and J. Oro, "Organic compounds in meteorites - IV.
Gas chromatographic - mass spectrometric studies of isoprenoids and
other isomeric alkanes in carbonaceous chordrites", Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta, 1970, 34, 981-994.
8 G. W. Hodgson and B. L. Baker, "Evidence for porphyrins in
the Orgueil meteorite", Nature, 1964, 202, 125-131.
9 V. A. Krayushkin, The Abiotic, Mantle Origin of Petroleum,
Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1984.
10 V. B. Porfir'yev, "Inorganic origin of petroleum", American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 1974, 58, 3-33.
11 P. N. Kropotkin, Y. I. Pikovskii, B. M. Valyaev, K. B.
Serebrovskaya, A. P. Rudenko, A. L. Lapidus, E. B. Chekaliuk and G. N.
Dolenko, Journal of D. I. Mendeleev, All-Union Chem. Soc., Moscow,
1986.
12 M. H. Studier, R. Hayatsu and E. Anders, "Origin of organic
matter in the early solar system: I. Hydrocarbons", Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta, 1968, 32, 151-173.
13 G. P. Vdovykin, Meteorites, Nauka, Moscow, 1968.
14 G. W. Hodgson and B. L. Baker, "Porphyrin abiogenesis from
pyrole and formaldehyde under simulated geochemical conditions",
Nature, 1967, 216, 29-32.
15 F. K. North, Petroleum Geology, Allen & Unwin, Boston, 1985.
16 B. Tissot and D. H. Welte, Petroleum Formation and Occurrence,
Springer, Berlin, 1981.
17 R. C. Selley, Elements of Petroleum Geology, W. H. Freeman,
New York, 1995.
18 T. S. Zemanian, Chemical Kinetics and Equilibria of
Hydrocarbon Mixtures at Advanced Temperatures and Pressures, Cornell,
Ithaca, 1985.
19 J. F. Kenney and U. K. Deiters, "The evolution of
multicomponent systems at high pressures: IV. The genesis of optical
activity in high-density, abiotic fluids", Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.,
2000, 2, 3163-3174.
20 L. Pasteur, "Sur la dissym=E9trie moleculaire", C.R. Hebd.
S=E9anc, 1848, 26, 535.
21 L. Pasteur, "Sur la dissym=E9trie moleculaire", in Le=E7ons de
chimie profess=E9es en 1860 par M. M. Pasteur, Cahours, Wurtz,
Berthelot, Sante-claire Deville, Barral, et Dumas, Paris 1861,
Hachette, Paris, 1886.
22 M. H. Engel and B. Nagy, "Distribution and enantiomeric
composition of amino acids in the Murchison meteorite", Nature, 1982,
296, 837-840.
23 M. H. Engel, S. A. Macko and J. A. Silfer, "Carbon isotope
composition of individual amino acids in the Murchison meteorite",
Nature, 1990, 348, 47-49.
24 M. H. Engel and S. A. Macko, "Isotopic evidence for
extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite",
Nature, 1997, 389, 265-268.
25 S. Pizzarello and J. R. Cronin, "Non-racemic amino acids in
the Murray and Murchison meteorites", Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 2000,
64, 329-338.
26 B. Nagy, "Optical Activity in the Orgueil meteorite", Science,
1965, 150, 1846.
27 U. Colombo, F. Gazzarini and R. Gonfiantini, "Die Variationen
in der chemischen und isotopen Zusammensetzung von Erdgas aus
Suditalien", Leipzig, 1967, vol. Vortrag ASTI-67.
28 E. M. Galimov, Isotope Zusammensetzung des Kohlenstoffe aus
Gassen der Erdrinde, Leipzig, 1967.
29 V. A. Krayushkin, "Origins, patterns, dimensions, and
distributions of the world petroleum potential", Georesursy, 2000, 3,
14-18.
30 P. Szatmari, "Petroleum formation by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
in plate tectonics", Bull. A.A.P.G., 1989, 73, 989-996.
"The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have
been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned
as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration
for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective
of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum
origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended
purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that
basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves
amount to at least 8,200 M metric tons [65 billion barrels] of
recoverable oil and 100 B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are
thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska."
www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm
And curiously, Russia is now the largest producer of oil. They go
looking in
all the wrong places. Vietnam has also been doing pretty well (sic)
at
drilling in deep crystalline rock.
And from
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D47551
Why did the AAPG decide to hold the Calgary session on abiotic oil?
The answer is that the arguments and evidence for inorganic oil are
gaining ground, despite the reluctance of conventional thinkers in the
petroleum industry to entertain any idea that challenges so
fundamentally their core beliefs.
A key may be found in the English version of Kitchka's professional
paper, which he e-mailed to us - so many oil finds have been made in
bedrock structures that "Fossil-Fuel" theorists can no longer keep the
lid on. The paper Kitchka e-mailed to us is an expanded version of his
Calgary presentation. Kitchka makes the point that oil has been found
in basement structures all around the world:
To present time more than 450 oil and gas fields with commercial
productivity of the crystalline basement are known worldwide over all
continents except Antarctica.
The problem is that according to conventional "Fossil-Fuel" theory,
dinosaur fossils and ancient forests are supposed to be found in
sedimentary rock, not bedrock. The question of bedrock oil finds has
been swept under the rug by conventional petroleum thinkers for
decades. If oil is found where no dinosaurs or ancient forests ever
were, then the "Fossil-Fuel" theory may end up having been a fiction
all along. In more reserved, professional terms, Kitchka presents the
difficulty:
There are still no valid criteria for successful oil and gas
prospecting in the basement within the frame of the traditional
paradigm for the origin of oil.
Evidently the secret of bedrock oil finds cannot be kept any longer.
Kitchka describes oil found at bedrock levels within the deep earth as
the "final frontier for oil and gas exploration."
However, rather prolific pay zones have been tested in the deep
fractured entrails of some fields in West Siberia and offshore Vietnam
(Cuu Long basin) where petroleum-content spreads to the depth of
1,000-1,500 meters beneath the basement surface. Thus, it is obvious
that reservoir potential and reserves of the Precambrian basement had
been greatly underestimated for decades.
Kitchka's point is that paradigms may be shifting in petroleum
geology. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his classic 1962 book, "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," paradigm shifts occur in science
when conventional thinking can no longer be stretched to explain new
discoveries and substantiated evidence to the contrary.
In writing "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the
Politics of Oil," Craig Smith and I are arguing that the abiotic,
"Deep-Earth" theory of the origin of oil represents just such a
paradigm shift. We have also argued that conventional wisdom persists
in large part because challenges to traditional ideas tend to have
important political and economic consequences. We write that "Peak-
Oil" is an inherent corollary of the "Fossil-Fuel" theory. If there
were only a finite number of dinosaurs and ancient forests available
to rot into petroleum, then by definition the world is bound to run
out of oil sooner or later. What would happen to world oil prices if
the public ever entertained the idea that oil is naturally generated
by the Earth on a constant basis?
Given this perspective, we are not surprised to find "Black Gold
Stranglehold" has become a book that Big Oil does not want you to
read. Petroleum geologists with careers and decades of their lives
invested in "fossil-fuel" thinking are predictably uncomfortable,
especially when a half-day conference on inorganic oil is held by as
established a professional group as the AAPG.
-----------------
"Fossil Fuel" is just another primitive religion hiding under a cover
over psuedo science
and worshipped by non-thinking idiots, ie. you. How many Wyrms must
one crush to
produce a billion billion barrels of oil?
Why are the lightest hydrocarbons (gas) the deepest, the next dense
(liquids) shallower,
and the most dense, coals and tars, lying on the surface? Surely this
is upside down
in the great theory that somehow fuels are made by magically crushing
lizards with
incredible heat and pressure. One would expect the coal at the bottom
wouldn't one?
Mark Addinall.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	29 Jan 2008 01:14:54 AM

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:09:22 -0800 (PST), Addinall
<addinall@addinall.org> wrote:

On Jan 23, 7:40 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:51 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

Not relevant to christian culture, descended from roman culture, and
for whom "Jesus" had nothing to do with Judaism.

What?

:
"Athur Brain = "Half a brain"
Q.E.D.
.

User: "Tomasso"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	29 Jan 2008 03:48:30 AM

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:vhktp3p85iukr64rrl39g3i4ekgbf1amud@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:09:22 -0800 (PST), Addinall
<addinall@addinall.org> wrote:

On Jan 23, 7:40 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:51 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

Not relevant to christian culture, descended from roman culture, and
for whom "Jesus" had nothing to do with Judaism.

What?

"Athur Brain = "Half a brain"
Q.E.D.

Ectually, Arthur is correct. This goes to show that out of the mouths of stupid
bigots, truth can truly emerge, and from the wisest, mistakes may arise.
How so?
Arthur refers specifically to "christian culture, descended from roman culture".
And a few moments reflection will reveal to the mildly educated reader, a
wealth of insight. That which descended from roman culture" was the practices
of domination, conquest, abuse of young boys, self-serving empire building,
the odd road, and incredible inbreeding of the ideas of a few wise men,
diluted by the foolish ranting of the "recitation" brigade, who edited to favour
their aspiration or mates.
One wonders about the rest of "christian culture", though. Including the extensive
amount derived from Judaism, the lump from Buddhism, the plethora from
neo-Platonism, the more than a speck from Medean culture, the dollops
from Persia, as well as the challenging behaviour of an uppity son of a
carpenter.
Although post-dated, there are profound insights from Islamic culture in
Christianity as well. Islam being a desert adapted version of Judaism. [One
needs to know that much of the Middle East became desertified between
200 BC and 500 AD].
WTF is Christianity now, but a bunch of roots (of merit varying from the
sublime to the genuinely ridiculous, transformed into one version of an opiate
for the masses). Is it all bad? Undoubtedly not. Is it all good? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Tomasso - who doesn't eat pig meat.
.

User: "David Moss"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	29 Jan 2008 06:03:24 AM

In article <479ef659$0$9742$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>,

writes...

Arthur refers specifically to "christian culture, descended from roman culture".
And a few moments reflection will reveal to the mildly educated reader, a
wealth of insight. That which descended from roman culture" was the practices
of domination, conquest, abuse of young boys, self-serving empire building,
the odd road, and incredible inbreeding of the ideas of a few wise men,
diluted by the foolish ranting of the "recitation" brigade, who edited to favour
their aspiration or mates.

Come on now, the ancient Israelites did all that stuff too, its just the
Romans were better at it!
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.

User: "Tomasso"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	29 Jan 2008 02:41:35 PM

"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message news:MPG.2209b3075e1c89f798b0c0@news.bigpond.com...

In article <479ef659$0$9742$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>,

writes...

Come on now, the ancient Israelites did all that stuff too, its just the
Romans were better at it!

OK, I accept. Arthur is truly a bag of flatulence.
Perhaps I should have referred to the extensive hierarchy model of control and
domination which the Roman's developed. Christianity certainly copied that!
And without the centrality of hierarchies, Descartes may never have made any
impact, and IT would be a cottage industry...
T.
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	01 Feb 2008 10:05:38 PM

On Jan 29, 7:48=A0pm, "Tomasso" <Toma...@blank.blank> wrote:

"Michael Gray" <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:vhktp3p85iukr64=

rrl39g3i4ekgbf1amud@4ax.com...

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:09:22 -0800 (PST), Addinall
<addin...@addinall.org> wrote:

On Jan 23, 7:40 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

On Jan 17, 6:51 pm, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Addinall wrote:

So, dipstick, if'n he was the King of the Jews, then I guess he had
a passable knowledge of the law, tenents, and testements of th Bible=

Being Son of God and all would give hime a pretty unrestricted
ISP account, or library card at least.

Not relevant to christian culture, descended from roman culture, and
for whom "Jesus" had nothing to do with Judaism.

What?

"Athur Brain =3D "Half a brain"
Q.E.D.

Ectually, Arthur is correct. This goes to show that out of the mouths of s=

tupid

bigots, truth can truly emerge, and from the wisest, mistakes may arise.

How so?

Arthur refers specifically to "christian culture, descended from roman cul=

ture".

And a few moments reflection will reveal to the mildly educated reader, a
wealth of insight. That which descended from roman culture" was the practi=

ces

of domination, conquest, abuse of young boys, self-serving empire building=

the odd road, and incredible inbreeding of the ideas of a few wise men,
diluted by the foolish ranting of the "recitation" brigade, who edited to =

favour

their aspiration or mates.

'Tis true, Rome had an influence on the mess we now know as
Christianity. Quite a large
influence via Augustus and Constantine. To infer our legal system,
and culture is
a transition from Rome is a work of fiction. Just looking at the
etemology of MOST
words in the current version of English will show many more references
to the Danes
and the Normans than Latin. Latin vulgaris is still populated in our
language, but
not to the degree people assume. "Thee" and "Thou" are still popular
in Yorkshire.
"English Culture" is such a confused mish-mash of every bloody culture
known,
now and past, that it is stupid to try and put a defining "root" t
what we observe today.
As I pointed out to that half a bag of mal aria, we still celebrate
the Pagan Gods in our
weekdays. How civilised is that? We still call planet two "Venus"?
And most refer
to M24 as "Orion". Scrape the surface of "science" and "civilisation"
and you
can still find a LOT of bizarre notions.
Global warming as a religion is a recent example, as is oil being
magickally
derived from skished Wyrms in ancint rockses. Errrrr, yeah.

One wonders about the rest of "christian culture", though. Including the e=

xtensive

amount derived from Judaism, the lump from Buddhism, the plethora from
neo-Platonism, the more than a speck from Medean culture, the dollops
from Persia, as well as the challenging behaviour of an uppity son of a
carpenter.

Although post-dated, there are profound insights from Islamic culture in
Christianity as well. Islam being a desert adapted version of Judaism. [On=

needs to know that much of the Middle East became desertified between
200 BC and 500 AD].

That's the fault of the amount of 4WDs being smoked around the bush at
the time.
I have proof.
The Book of Fonz
1.13.2 "Though shall take thy 4WDs and verily spin doughnuts
in the Heathen Shrubbery, ignoring the protestations from the
less than washed infidels that campeth therein."
Unfortunatly, the Book of Fonz has been lost, and no copies exist,
apart from mine.

WTF is Christianity now, but a bunch of roots (of merit varying from the
sublime to the genuinely ridiculous, transformed into one version of an op=

iate

for the masses). Is it all bad? Undoubtedly not. Is it all good? Ha ha ha =

ha ha ha ha!
Good or bad; it's bloody confused nonsense. "He's the Son of God" -
"Oh yeah, he's ALSO GOD,
so therfore a more powerful phrophet than your's" - "Oh yeah, he's
also a POWERFUL SPOOKY
GHOST THING THAT CAN SEND YOU TO HELL!"..... What fucking nonsense.

Tomasso - who doesn't eat pig meat.- Hide quoted text -

Nah, not keen on pig meat meself. A touch to Human like
for an ungulate for my liking.
Marky.

- Show quoted text -

User: "Tomasso"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	01 Feb 2008 11:12:12 PM

"Addinall" <addinall@addinall.org> wrote in message news:16c07e6f-08c0-42ed-be7b-e2653c19d5c1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Just looking at the etemology of MOST words in the current version of
English will show many more references to the Danes and the Normans
than Latin.

Well, yes. Especially considering a Norse name like Osborn = Os Bjorn
(God + Bear). 'Ken scary...
Tomasso.
.

User: "Addinall"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	02 Feb 2008 11:46:41 PM

On Feb 2, 3:12=A0pm, "Tomasso" <Toma...@blank.blank> wrote:

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in messagenews:16c07e6f-08c0-42ed=

-be7b-e2653c19d5c1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Just looking at the etemology of MOST words in the current version of
English will show many more references to the Danes and the Normans
than Latin. =A0

Well, yes. Especially considering a Norse name like Osborn =3D Os Bjorn
(God + Bear). 'Ken scary...

What do you make of
Add in All?
Marky.

Tomasso.

User: "Tomasso"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	03 Feb 2008 02:30:24 AM

"Addinall" <addinall@addinall.org> wrote in message news:32d366b0-3694-4a3c-b1c4-32912b813239@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 2, 3:12 pm, "Tomasso" <Toma...@blank.blank> wrote:

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in messagenews:16c07e6f-08c0-42ed-be7b-e2653c19d5c1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Just looking at the etemology of MOST words in the current version of
English will show many more references to the Danes and the Normans
than Latin.

Well, yes. Especially considering a Norse name like Osborn = Os Bjorn
(God + Bear). 'Ken scary...

What do you make of

Add in All?

"Son of Adam", but most likely Irish or Scottish ancestor called Adam (church
linked) from between C8 and C14. The name Adam originally meant earth (in
Hebrew) and also used for "man" (as first man, came from earth, made by dog
spelt backards). The name became seriously entrenched in the influence of the
church of Rome, so people used it, in case it might save them getting a
bollocking by baldies with brown frocks...
Similarly Mary from Hebrew = "bitter", later one so named gave birth to an
uppity critter, father unknown. Curiously she became known as the mother
of dog, but dog was claimed to be the father, and the spirit was also involved
in the menage somehow.
Similary Eve from Hebrew = "life", also used for first woman, but there is an
alternative line that Lilith was the first wife.
Mark was the originally linked to Mars, dog of war...
And of course, Tomasso was the doubter twin of all these convenient stories
(and many since). Who was his twin?
T.
.

User: "Tomasso"
Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story	03 Feb 2008 01:55:03 AM

"Addinall" <addinall@addinall.org> wrote in message news:32d366b0-3694-4a3c-b1c4-32912b813239@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 2, 3:12 pm, "Tomasso" <Toma...@blank.blank> wrote:

"Addinall" <addin...@addinall.org> wrote in messagenews:16c07e6f-08c0-42ed-be7b-e2653c19d5c1@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Just looking at the etemology of MOST words in the current version of
English will show many more references to the Danes and the Normans
than Latin.

Well, yes. Especially considering a Norse name like Osborn = Os Bjorn
(God + Bear). 'Ken scary...

What do you make of

Add in All?

Some of Adam, but most likely Irish or Scottish ancestor called Adam (church
linked) from between C8 and C14. The name Adam originally meant earth (in
Hebrew) and also used for "man" (as first man, came from earth, made by dog
spelt backards). The name became seriously entrenched in the influence of the
church of Rome, so people used it, in case it might save them getting a
bollocking by baldies with brown frocks...
Similarly Mary from Hebrew = "bitter", later one so named gave birth to an
uppity critter, father unknown. Curiously she became known as the mother
of dog, but dog was claimed to be the father, and the spirit was also involved
in the menage somehow.
Similary Eve from Hebrew = "life", also used for first woman, but there is an
alternative line that Lilith was the first wife.
Mark was the originally linked to Mars, dog of war...
And of course, Tomasso was the doubter twin of all these convenient stories
(and many since). Who was his twin?
T.
.