I just had my life threatened debating ideas within Islam!

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You are just getting fairly boring now and calling everyone an apologist is pointless. Let's just agree that what was classed as legal in America at least as close to today as 60 years ago is medievel and barbaric for other cultures.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not being an apologist by saying it's a cultural difference, I'm saying that I don't like to look at everything in the world purely and wholly from the perspective of where I sit in that world. To do so is extremely naive.

So you really are saying that there are circumstances in which stuff like this is acceptable? Can you expand on that? Like what?

Like when if you would move there, and adopt the culture, you would be paying parents to have sex with their underaged daughter? That kind of perspective?

Hmmm, starting to wonder if you are just being a bore. No, where have I said I would find such a thing acceptable? But then again if I was in Mississippi I wouldn't consent for one of my children to have sex at such a young age either - would you? That kind of perspective?

I would however try and understand the difference between one culture and my own, not assume for some reason I have the right to start criticising someone before having all the facts at hand.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
I was having a peaceful debate, via Skype with an Australian Palestinian man, and I brought up Muhammad's child brides, and this man decided at that point in our debate to threaten my life, first he said, " I'll smash your head through glass, if you bring that point up.

What is wrong with threats? Oral Roberts said that if his viewers didn't send him 8 million in 1987 on national TV that Jesus was going to kill him.

Even the mafia won't threaten you if you pay your debts. And in this instance Jesus threatened a faithful minister who got baptized, married, honored his wife and son who followed in his ministry to recruit souls to Jesus.

You have to expect threats from God's followers because Jesus according Oral Roberts is in fact a felon. There is a legal definition Jesus' behavior in threatening Oral Roberts. It's called EXTORTION, when you threaten people to gain access to property. Jesus is a two time felon. Felony threats, and felony extortion.

Jesus is a bad role model. But then Jesus even threatened the Roman governor with execution. Pilate didn't have a choice in following Roman rule and given that Pilate had murderers on trial for murder like Barrabas who was in Roman custody for murder, Roman rule was fairly just. It was a land of order and law. And Jesus threatened people for not wanting a king. Not wanting a king is not a capital offense. Murder is. Jesus should have limited his threats to those people who threatened him, not a blanket general threat to those who didn't want a king.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I was having a peaceful debate, via Skype with an Australian Palestinian man, and I brought up Muhammad's child brides, and this man decided at that point in our debate to threaten my life

Yup that happens... I've debated with Christians before and some of them have made death threats when ever I try bring up the valid the point that the God of the OT was a genocidal maniac or that Moses was a war monger and sexist...

Anyway,you have to build a thicker skin to this sort of drop in decorum because it will happen regardless of how you present your points towards people of faith. I realize how scary or at the very least a bit taken back that someone would get this aggravated by the point you made, but again this is to be expected from debating theology with fundamentalists. This man was more than likely a fundamentalist. No amount of apologists can say this man wasn't.

I'm not excusing what he did, but you did back him into a corner like a rat when you brought up this valid point and he did what rats do best when their intellectually bankrupt. He attacked you. All you should do is shrug it off, rehash the same point because let's face it. You're correct about Muhammad and marrying children,this is something that Muslims can't ignore about their own theology much like Jews and Christians can't ignore a similar issue with regards to sexual relations with prepubescent children. This being a debate he had the opportunity to prove you wrong but for childish reasons chose not to.

I get the frustration and it can be really annoying to have an entire debate derailed because your opponent is too childish to face the facts and come up with an intellectual counter argument. I wish you all the luck in your future endeavors TechniXcality,I know you and I have had our disagreements but your contributions are interesting to read.
Keep it up.

a reply to: uncommitted

I would however try and understand the difference between one culture and my own, not assume for some reason I have the right to start criticising someone before having all the facts at hand.

Doing it again. You are clearly implying that it is acceptable looking at it from their perspective. What additional facts would make it acceptable?

a reply to: uncommitted

You are just getting fairly boring now and calling everyone an apologist is pointless. Let's just agree that what was classed as legal in America at least as close to today as 60 years ago is medievel and barbaric for other cultures.

Blacks should sit in the back of the bus!

What? It was acceptable in the 60's, so I bet you agree that it is ok for me to say and think that right now, right? In fact if anyone here called me out on it, you would come to my defense with the same apologetic line.

"But it was common practise only 60 years ago!".

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: uncommitted

I would however try and understand the difference between one culture and my own, not assume for some reason I have the right to start criticising someone before having all the facts at hand.

Doing it again. You are clearly implying that it is acceptable looking at it from their perspective.

Last response from me as I've clearly become troll feed. No, I said I would understand the difference in culture before I opened my mouth as I would be in a better position to talk. If my father had legally married his 13 year old cousin though I would have been disgusted and made my disgust clear (actually I'd be wondering why I kept looking so fondly at banjos I guess) - is that the same thing?

If you take the time to actually look at the OP, the clash point came when he 'brought up Mohammed's child brides' - did you miss that point or intentionally overlook it in your eagerness to jump into yet another thread which is just displaying anti Islam comments with naked hypocrisy? Actually, rhetorical question, don't bother responding.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: uncommitted

You are just getting fairly boring now and calling everyone an apologist is pointless. Let's just agree that what was classed as legal in America at least as close to today as 60 years ago is medievel and barbaric for other cultures.

Blacks should sit in the back of the bus!

What? It was acceptable in the 60's, so I bet you agree that it is ok for me to say and think that right now, right? In fact if anyone here called me out on it, you would come to my defense with the same apologetic line.

"But it was common practise only 60 years ago!".

No, it was wrong at the time but I'm sure there are plenty in America even now who disagree with that. No apologetic line from me - I think you will find you are being apologetic about the recent past in America and denying that is showing your hypocrisy.

a reply to: uncommitted

Last response from me as I've clearly become troll feed. No, I said I would understand the difference in culture before I opened my mouth as I would be in a better position to talk.

You are still implying that a better understanding of their culture would make it more acceptable. How else can I interprete it.

If you take the time to actually look at the OP, the clash point came when he 'brought up Mohammed's child brides'

It was a valid point, because in both cases, with current child brides, and mohammed's, it is accepted and/or ignored.

a reply to: uncommitted

Whatever, I am using the exact same logic you were using, if it doesn't work in my case then it doesn't work in your case.

You are the hypocrite here.

This is why I don't pay any attention to Islam any more, the people are in denial that their prophet was a paedophile. They'd rather get angry and make you ignore it.

Ive had a similair thing happen to me when i would debate a islamic friend on the internet awhile ago. He didnt threaten me, but just stopped talking to me altogether after a year of online chat.

I believe most decent muslims know pedophilia is bad. And that pedophilia is bad in a universal sense. It does not depend on the culture and society of a given time or place.

I think it shows obvious weakness or flawed character in muhammed and muslims cant stand when people bring it up.

In my experiance, there is hardly ever a real debate in religious arguements.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Thanks for the laughs, always the same people repeating the same song and dance.

Like being an Islam apologist? Like shifting blame to people making valid points?

I am sorry, this is a rant about a conversation one had, but thanks for claiming i am an apologised, see what happens when theres just opinions, and no fact as usual. nice fail

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

So I gather that you support pedophilia, and marrying child brides by adult men, in middle eastern countries. You take offence to people who point out these practices and oppose it, and you also support deaththreats to people who do so.

Just to make clear where you stand.

That's so cute, i am not religious, so no i wont defend priest or pedophiles, but thanks for coming out again, deflection,insults, circle jerk activated.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Misterlondon

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that he supports paedophilia from that comment.

Why is he attacking the OP for speaking out against the practise of marrying child brides in middle eatern countries. He sure didnt condemn that.

So my conclusion is that he must support the thing the OP is against. Can you come up with another reason?

Its called a rant, but yea i am attacking him because i defend pedos and crazy killers, makes so much more sense,when in doubt make stuff up, it might work

If one seeks out other cultures and finds "radicals" to "debate" with -- one really isn't debating, but rather intentionally looking for explosive situations in order to confirm their own biases and prove themselves right.

Let's get real, no one is convincing anyone or changing anyone's minds. No one is learning a greater understanding of one another, or learning to see the world through the eyes of the other. It's simply an egotistical act of trying to impress superiority, and feel more secure in one's own beliefs.

And to wrap it up under the false pretenses of "gaining understanding" and "attempted tolerance" is disingenuous at best. It's a PC excuse to find and seek out those one doesn't agree with in order to impress upon them their own beliefs in an attempt to prove one's moral, ethical, and intellectual superiority.

It's really not much different than a SJW roaming around places looking to interact with non-PC people in an attempt to "understand them" -- but really just get into an argument so they can point their finger and say, "See! I told you so!"

a reply to: TechniXcality

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during this conversation.

Muhammad never married a child...
You lied...

That's a lie propogated by Persian Hadith at a time when they Hated Arabs...
250 years after Muhammad passed away...

Such important information would have been recorded instantly.


Secondly I don't believe you were on Skype with anyone...
I think you lied twice.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

So why are you attacking him?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

And to wrap it up under the false pretenses of "gaining understanding" and "attempted tolerance" is disingenuous at best. It's a PC excuse to find and seek out those one doesn't agree with in order to impress upon them their own beliefs in an attempt to prove one's moral, ethical, and intellectual superiority.

So what the OP pointed out is not true?

If one seeks out other cultures and finds "radicals" to "debate" with -- one really isn't debating, but rather intentionally looking for explosive situations in order to confirm their own biases and prove themselves right.

A lot of assumptions. How do you know he was looking for radicals? Apparently you think this guy was a radical, but it is clear that these views and practices are widespread in Egypt, for instance.

To play it down and suggest that this was just one radical and an isolated case is a classic apologetic tactic. Shifting blame to the person who dares to criticise, is too.