B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:4790a52c$0$25392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

--snip--

I note also these parallels to Islam:
* quotes taken out of context
* the Talmud is like the Hadith, embellished from the original

Actually the Talmud is commentary on the Torah, whereas the Hadith is not
commentary on the Quran. In Islam, the Quran is considered to be the word
of Allah, and the Hadith is a primarily a record of the sayings and
practices of Mohammed, with some early history thrown in.

The Hadith is also the primary resource for Shria Law, (Islamic
jurisprudence) and the adab of Islam (normal customs and pratcies).

Oh BTW, and when you provide the reference please ensure that a valid
site certificate is presented verified by a recognised certification
authority.

David Moss wrote:

In article <Xns9A27D8C05D2Emattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

...

The Bible does not record that Jesus had sex with children, but it
does not record anything at all about his sex life. The Islamic
literature, by contrast, does not gloss over the human aspects of the
Prophet's life at all.

That isn't the point! You ASSUME Jesus had a sex life.

No, I don't. You assume that I assume Jesus had a sex life.

I think it is possible that Jesus had a sex life. He may have been
married. We do not know however, because the Bible fails to mention this
aspect of his life. It certainly would have been unusual for the first
born in the family of a skilled tradesman not to be married in those
times.

Actually there is evidence that Jesus did have a sex life. According to
the gnostics, he had a special relationship with one of his disciples
(an adult woman).

The story goes that this was suppressed and the Gnostics were persecuted
as heretics because of this belief.

But no
scriupture Christian or Islamic say he did! They certainly do not
record him having sex with a nine year old! Ther is no scriptural
evidence! But the IS in the case of Mohammad.

We have evidence that Mohammed did something that was considered right,
proper and even desirable by the society of his time and place.

We have no evidence to show Jesus ever married, despite this being the
normal and expected thing in his time and place.

There is no evidence that he married.

The New Testament treats the life of Jesus in the same way I treated
the lives of my candidates when I wrote press for them during
election campaigns. I assure you I knew a lot more about my
candidates than I ever committed to paper!

So what? That doesn not chang the point!

Indeed. The point is that all we know about the life of Jesus comes from
the equivalent of his press office. Likewise with Mohammed. Neither is
likely to have published something about their candidate they thought
would tarnish his image. We know Mohammed consummated his marriage with
a 9 year old because this was considered to be a right, proper and
desirable thing to have done at the time it went to press.

We know
nothing about Jesus marital status and sex life because his press office
did not think the information would help with the Christian campaign.

If he did have a sex life, it *was* purged from Christianity but only
several years later. The scrolls which showed up in 1945 had been hidden
by monks many centuries earlier, fearing persecution.

Did Jesus never marry? Possibly, but that would have been considered
_very_ strange at the time.

If Jesus did marry but fail to consummate the union that too would have
been very strange.

If Jesus was sexually active without being married he would have
committed the sin of adultery. That would have ended the Christian
campaign instantly if word got around.

You're making a lot of assumptions. Jesus turned a lot of prevailing
beliefs upside down, why not this one?

However, having said that, your *assumption* may be correct - but it is
just speculation.

Personally I think it is likely Jesus did marry because at the time and
place he lived the bride and groom had no say in the matter.

Another assumption!

In article <Xns9A27D8C05D2Emattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

"Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> wrote in
news:9e95c$478eca43$4f61217c$3981@news.upc.ie:

,uk.religion.islam,aus.religion.islam,aus.politics,

cut
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f94546b5cbe23398afc8@news.bigpond.com...

In article <6f4b9$478e7dd7$4f61217c$9223@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...

"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f8cfa3d4483b5398afc4@news.bigpond.com...

In article <Xns9A275914911Fmattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

Show me where modern day respected Jewish or Christian leaders

condone

and

openly teach pedophelia and I might agree with you.

Perhaps a few examples of respected modern day Christian leaders
*engaging* in paedophile might rattle your cage.

[snip list of apparently christian clerics abusing children]

(http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html)

Again you miss the point! NONE of the Christian church accept this
abuse

as

morally acceptabble!
The point is that Christian scripture does not record christ as
having

sex

with a nine year old. islamic scripture DOES record Mohammad as
having

done

so. Pedeophilia has NO SCRIPTURAL support in christianity. Nor has
and Christian church leader, or theologian proposed such sexual
acts as acceptable.In fact they have condemned such acts. Islamic
teachers on

the

other hand seem to have excused or defended or made rules to deal
with

such

acts WITHOUT condemning such acts.

Further up the thread I posted references to scriptures that condone
the rape of girls under the age of 12 and even excusing the sexual
penetration of girls under the age of 3.

What Christian scriptures say this?

Read the next paragraph:

These references form part of
the Law, of which Jesus stated that not one word should be removed or
changed.

Where did Jesus say this? In fact Jesus modified and reformed the
Mosaic law! He CHANGED the "eye for eye" type law and many others.

"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(Matthew 5:17)

The Bible does not record that Jesus had sex with children, but it
does not record anything at all about his sex life. The Islamic
literature, by contrast, does not gloss over the human aspects of the
Prophet's life at all.

That isn't the point! You ASSUME Jesus had a sex life.

No, I don't. You assume that I assume Jesus had a sex life.

I think it is possible that Jesus had a sex life. He may have been
married.

We do not know however, because the Bible fails to mention this
aspect of his life. It certainly would have been unusual for the first
born in the family of a skilled tradesman not to be married in those
times.

But no
scriupture Christian or Islamic say he did! They certainly do not
record him having sex with a nine year old! Ther is no scriptural
evidence! But the IS in the case of Mohammad.

We have evidence that Mohammed did something that was considered right,
proper and even desirable by the society of his time and place.

We have no evidence to show Jesus ever married, despite this being the
normal and expected thing in his time and place.

The New Testament treats the life of Jesus in the same way I treated
the lives of my candidates when I wrote press for them during
election campaigns. I assure you I knew a lot more about my
candidates than I ever committed to paper!

So what? That doesn not chang the point!

Indeed. The point is that all we know about the life of Jesus comes from
the equivalent of his press office.

Likewise with Mohammed. Neither is
likely to have published something about their candidate they thought
would tarnish his image.

We know Mohammed consummated his marriage with
a 9 year old because this was considered to be a right, proper and
desirable thing to have done at the time it went to press. We know
nothing about Jesus marital status and sex life because his press office
did not think the information would help with the Christian campaign.

Did Jesus never marry? Possibly, but that would have been considered
_very_ strange at the time.

If Jesus did marry but fail to consummate the union that too would have
been very strange.

If Jesus was sexually active without being married he would have
committed the sin of adultery. That would have ended the Christian
campaign instantly if word got around.

Personally I think it is likely Jesus did marry because at the time and
place he lived the bride and groom had no say in the matter. It would
all have been arranged by the respective families.

You ALLEGDE that Jesus had
sex with nine year olds as it says Mohammad did!

No, I didn't. I said that Jesus declared the Law that allowed sex with
girls from birth valid, along with the law that conferred ownership of
any girl over the age of 3 years and 1 day to the man who penetrated her
vagina.

But NOWHERE is that
written! On the other hand it IS written about Mohammad!
whether or not you suspect what is not written down you can not deny
what IS written down.

Indeed. As a political writer I am well aware of the opportunity
presented to write about an event concerning the candidate that is
considered right, proper and desirable at the time.

There is nothing wrong with this. It is the purpose of the New
Testament to make Jesus look good, and to promote his policies. It is
a mistake to assume the New Testament is all there is to Jesus
though, just as it is a mistake to assume press releases written by
staffers are all there is to politicians today.

But you are reading in your own bias! The FACT is that the New
teatament PREDATES Mohammad by centuries and is the SAME scripture as
it was then when it pre dated Mohammad by centuries. Just because you
claim it was purt together as a propaganda exercise does not detract
from the actual written FACT!

Are you aware that Muslims consider Jesus to be the second greatest
Prophet after Mohammed?

Of course Jesus predated Mohammed. Mohammed
endorsed Jesus!

Incidentally if it was put together taking in the politics of the day
then where does that put your point about sex with children being
normal for those times? How come they didn't put that in if it
normally happened? And if they avoided putting it in because it made
people look better then surely not having sex with children was viewed
as @better@ ? so then why is Mohammad depicted as not doing a "better"
thing?

You would really have to ask the authors about that. We can't second
guess an editorial decision made 2000 years ago.

Presumably the timing of consummation was important for political
reasons in the case of Mohammed and Aisha. The real deal was not the
marriage itself, but the alliance between the tribes it represented.
Consummation of the marriage made the agreement irrevocable. Recording
the time that happened was important to everyone concerned. So it was
recorded.

If Jesus was married the details were obviously not important to the
Christian campaign, so no mention was made. from that we can infer that
Jesus either never married, did not marry into a politically important
union, or the details were not helpful to the overall campaign.

David Moss is a well known defender of kiddy-diddlers - he probably

his own students.

A repost of material elsewhere in the thread seems appropriate in
response to Matt's comment:

<repost>
Many propagandists are motivated by ethnophobia. They fear and loath
anyone who is different from what they consider to be ideal. This often
includes themselves and any personal attributes they consider fall short
of perfection.

Ethnophobia is defined as either irrational fear and hatred of one's own
nation or (strangely opposite), hatred of any race or ethnicity
different to one's own.

The most extreme form of this is found among neo-Nazis and other far-
right nationalist and religious fanatics. These poor souls sometimes
discover USENET and make it their mission to SPAM in every snippet of
information that casts their targets in a bad light.

Because their position is based on irrational fear they are often
irrational in their response to criticism. The often resort to abuse,
attacking their adversaries using ad-homenium rather than addressing the
detail of the arguments.

Often their psychology can be described using the Right Wing
Authoritarian Follower model. The RWAF is characterised by
compartmentalised thinking. A RWAF can simultaneously criticise an
opponent for a characteristic, despite the fact their own preferred
authority exhibits the same characteristic or worse.

Pointing this out to a RWAF results in cognitive dissonance which they
generally deal with through vehement personal attack.

Now there always remains a possibility that someone who compulsively
spams vilification material across multiple newsgroups is not motivated
as described above.

There is always a first time for everything.
</repost>

In article <Xns9A27D8C05D2Emattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(Matthew 5:17)

In article <Xns9A275914911Fmattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...

Show me where modern day respected Jewish or Christian leaders
condone and openly teach pedophelia and I might agree with you.

Perhaps a few examples of respected modern day Christian leaders
*engaging* in paedophile might rattle your cage.

US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3%
ages 15-17.
Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred
within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years;
11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three;
13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests
caused 27% of allegations).
Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8%
elsewhere.
Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not
include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after
research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)
(http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html)