answer to the thread of finsbury mosque
22 January 2003, 10:09 AM
#32
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.sharif.org.uk/jesus15.htm check this out too
we have the same God mate but we cant see our God but when u think of God u think he is white and light brown haired and blue eyed
we have the same God mate but we cant see our God but when u think of God u think he is white and light brown haired and blue eyed
22 January 2003, 10:31 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe the medeival paintings of Christ, he is Italian , with mousey coloured hair and a Roman nose, not a middle eastern gent (who look like all of the other people from that region).
I'm sure I'll end up in Limbo for this
I'm sure I'll end up in Limbo for this
22 January 2003, 10:54 AM
#38
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol so right people forget the messiah was middle eastern and even inthe bible it says his skin was the colour of brass and where does white come into it and look at the virgin mary wonderfully dressed as a good muslim lady , see thats why muslim ladies dress up nicely
and look at the virgin mary wonderfully dressed as a good muslim lady , see thats why muslim ladies dress up nicely
22 January 2003, 11:07 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I will beg to differ on the 'muslim ladies dressing nicely
Just as the muslim communities look on western values with distaste, the west looks upon the treatment of muslim women with a similar view. I am not convinced that they have got the womens interests at heart by forcing them to wear the veil.
Just as the muslim communities look on western values with distaste, the west looks upon the treatment of muslim women with a similar view. I am not convinced that they have got the womens interests at heart by forcing them to wear the veil.
22 January 2003, 11:44 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is no god IMO. (if there was, i think he'd be so nagged off with his eternally-disappointing and murderous charges that he'd have thrown in the towel by now and retired to tunbridge wells to play golf and send sporadic letters of complaint to the daily mail).
not wishing to offend those of you with religious faith but organised religion, of any flavour, appears to me as merely an ancient and intrinsicly corrupt human construct devised to:
- exert control and delineate geopolitical and historical tribal differences between all species of mankind.
- provide a metaphysical, pre-scientific foundation for explaining our environment, existence, conflict, ability to reason and our stark difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.
- provide a political fig-leaf to go and bash someone else because they're in our way or have something we want/need.
the religion we have left today is largely the long-term hangover from a continuous, four century binge on science and empirical observation and it remains in (dangerous) conflict with itself in both the west and the east.
not wishing to offend those of you with religious faith but organised religion, of any flavour, appears to me as merely an ancient and intrinsicly corrupt human construct devised to:
- exert control and delineate geopolitical and historical tribal differences between all species of mankind.
- provide a metaphysical, pre-scientific foundation for explaining our environment, existence, conflict, ability to reason and our stark difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.
- provide a political fig-leaf to go and bash someone else because they're in our way or have something we want/need.
the religion we have left today is largely the long-term hangover from a continuous, four century binge on science and empirical observation and it remains in (dangerous) conflict with itself in both the west and the east.
22 January 2003, 11:45 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er Moses, we generally allow our ladies to dress themselves. We don't have the problems which Turkey or other Muslim countries have with groups of young men hassling women on the beach as we recognise that to show a bare ankle isn't an invitation for Sex.
We try to treat women as equal and intelligent enough to make their own decisions on something as fundamental as dress code(an alien concept in islam as far as I can see).
We try to treat women as equal and intelligent enough to make their own decisions on something as fundamental as dress code(an alien concept in islam as far as I can see).
22 January 2003, 11:46 AM
#49
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there is no god IMO. (if there was, i think he'd be so nagged off with his eternally-disappointing and murderous charges that he'd have thrown in the towel by now and retired to tunbridge wells to play golf and send sporadic letters of complaint to the daily mail).
not wishing to offend those of you with religious faith but organised religion, of any flavour, appears to me as merely an ancient and intrinsicly corrupt human construct devised to:
- exert control and delineate geopolitical and historical tribal differences between all species of mankind.
- provide a metaphysical, pre-scientific foundation for explaining our environment, existence, conflict, ability to reason and our stark difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.
- provide a political fig-leaf to go and bash someone else because they're in our way or have something we want/need.
the religion we have left today is largely the long-term hangover from a continuous, four century binge on science and empirical observation and it remains in (dangerous) conflict with itself in both the west and the east. "
Not sure if they are your own words??? But as good as it gets.
not wishing to offend those of you with religious faith but organised religion, of any flavour, appears to me as merely an ancient and intrinsicly corrupt human construct devised to:
- exert control and delineate geopolitical and historical tribal differences between all species of mankind.
- provide a metaphysical, pre-scientific foundation for explaining our environment, existence, conflict, ability to reason and our stark difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.
- provide a political fig-leaf to go and bash someone else because they're in our way or have something we want/need.
the religion we have left today is largely the long-term hangover from a continuous, four century binge on science and empirical observation and it remains in (dangerous) conflict with itself in both the west and the east. "
Not sure if they are your own words??? But as good as it gets.
22 January 2003, 11:54 AM
#54
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Asylum seekers' we must not let in
Brian Sewell, Evening Standard
21 January 2003
As a headline, "Hundreds of boys brought to Britain and sold as slaves" was more suited to the 18th century than now, but there it was for all to read a week ago. What were we to make of it? We ended the slave trade here just short of two centuries ago and banished it throughout the Empire in 1833.
The boys arrive from Africa, it seems, aged eight or nine, clutching the hand of a bogus "auntie" or, rather older, in the care of a sometime sportsman who is taking them to some mythical training camp for would-be footballers - and then they disappear.
Where are they? Slavery and prostitution are the given answers, but how can this be true? We know from sex tourism worldwide that there is a market for pre-pubertal boys as playthings; we know it from the scandals in the Roman Catholic church and we know that, in the proxy form of internet pornography, the taste is far wider than we thought.
But surely we have not, in this country, reached the point where a man can, in the 18th century sense of ownership, buy a boy for slavery or sex? A boy is not to be chained as some men chain their dogs. A boy is not a submissive wife.
A boy eventually becomes a man - what then? I can think of no circumstances in which a white man could effectively own a black boy without immediately arousing suspicion. How, then, do they disappear?
Are they hidden in the black community? If so, how can we reconcile that community's much proclaimed derision for homosexuality with the exploitation of boys as catamites?
Have they disappeared because they are literally enslaved within the wealthy Islamic community? - we have, over the past two decades, heard enough of adult Filipino maids as the hapless slaves of sheik this or that, exercising diplomatic privilege. Or are we to believe that among the thousand brothels of this great metropolis there are those where paedophiles and pederasts can have their way with black boys who, having no English, are too scared to escape the men who sell their services? - this we know to be the case with girls.
Such hypotheses may seem incredible, but what is not in doubt is that the traffic dates back at least to 1997 and of the boys we have very little trace. Is this a case of neighbours casting a blind eye and of oblivious policemen in their panda cars? Is it another coach-and-horses driven past the immigration officers at Heathrow?
Is this yet another unwholesome aspect of the multicultural society we are expected to admire, nurture and sustain? We have been little more than tentative in our condemnation of female circumcision and forced marriages.
We have heard not a whisper from the African community in our midst in condemnation of the Victoria ClimbiȠcase, a child slowly done to death by the black equivalents of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, not a whisper to help identify the limbless, headless torso of a black boy in the Thames, the victim of some sort of voodoo sacrifice? Is this ignorance, fear, collusion or custom?
We should be very angry that our borders are so ineffectual. It is bad enough to have had, for years, the scam run by so-called language schools that operates as camouflage for immigrants without work permits but who are here to work.
It is bad enough to have had, for decades, immigrant communities that form exclusive pockets of language, animal slaughter, dress and other customs, claim citizenship and nationality but concede nothing as a quid pro quo. But now, slavery, penny-plain or tuppence- col oured, is being reintroduced here.
Even if Brit --ain is only an entrepٴ for the traffic, we have proof that hundreds of boys have been brazenly brought into this country past the very officials who should at least have cocked an enquiring eyebrow.
With the death of Special Branch detective Stephen Oake in Manchester we have, entirely by sad chance, incontrovertible proof that we might as well not have an immigration authority in any shape or form.
To the detriment of the true asylum seeker we have the clearest indication that some of their number, however small, and al Qaeda terrorists can be part and parcel of each other, the clearest indication that, wittingly or unwittingly, the greater body of asylum seekers provides camouflage for the terrorist.
Time and again it is argued that we have an obligation to give asylum to those genuinely seeking it. Morally this must be so and historically it has been our long and honourable tradition - witness our welcome to countless revolutionaries in the 19th century, to so many Austrian and German Jews in the 1930s and to such a confusion of Europeans fleeing Russian occupation after the Second World War.
It was with these circumstances in mind that we came, in 1951, to some international agreement over political asylum, but that, more than half a century ago, was another age and now, times very changed, we are confronted with demands for asylum that we can scarcely monitor.
Political correctitude has for far too long affected our response to asylum. The United Nations and sentimental moralists clinging to the ideals of 1951 would have us put no hindrance in the way of any claimant, but it must now be clear that if international terrorism is not to take hold on our daily lives we cannot be as soft as sentiment demands.
Our response to another headline, "Met leads hunt for network of fanatics", must be that this hunt is already too late and at a disadvantage - the first line of defence lay with the immigration authorities who have failed us.
Long before we knew of the Taliban, Bin Laden and al Qaeda we were aware of Algerian terrorism - it was there for all to see - and it should have been impossible for an Algerian to enter this country without immaculate bona fides; had we been more diligent and scrupulous, they would not have been here to manufacture ricin in one kitchen and slaughter Stephen Oake in another.
In effect, we have no borders. For "Open Sesame!" we now say "Asylum". It has worked for seemingly pathetic souls from Kosovo, Albania and Turkey who are now revealed as the barons of prostitution and the drug trade; it has worked for Africans, importing children for whatever fate and, once the door was open, in came the Yardies from Jamaica and yet more Africans importing bush meat.
Most of these people should have been halted at the airport and sent back pronto whence they came. We must, unilaterally, discard the asylum agreement of 1951 and run our immigration affairs in any way we need. We have, for too long, been lax, too easygoing, too willing to shrug shoulders, too fearful of the accusation of prejudice in a multicultural society, too ready to point to those who, in fleeing the *****, brought Britain great high cultural benefit. This last, in the current context, is a thoroughly specious argument.
We must harden our hearts and admit no one of whom we are suspicious. This will not solve the problem for we have already afforded entry to many of the enemy, but it will help to limit and eventually contain it.
It will undoubtedly cause hardship to harmless asylum seekers with genuine claims on our sympathy, but this may only be short-lived. If we do nothing, Stephen Oake's will be the first of many deaths.
[Edited by Luke - 1/22/2003 11:57:33 AM]
22 January 2003, 11:57 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zedhead, how come you're able to make halfway-rational statements on this thread, yet felt the need to spout the paragraph of tripe on the "insulting thread" thread now in Muppets??
I don't understand.
I don't understand.
22 January 2003, 12:01 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skip Jack, you have a point there. Was just thinking that my self. Maybe the 'the big man' decided to come amongst us(stop laughing at the back) and show us how he did it.
I take it all back
[Edited by Scot123 - 1/22/2003 12:03:14 PM]
I take it all back
[Edited by Scot123 - 1/22/2003 12:03:14 PM]