Originally Posted by newspresenter

YouTube - Movement for Italy leader Daniela Santanchè calls Mohammed a pedophile

Fatwa for Daniela Santanchè?

very interesting film did you watch it all the way through, liked the italian muslim looked like he was ready to dance on her head ha ha, Wonder if all the lady presenters have cleavage like her

as for the fatwa quite possible

This may be a surprise to you newspresenter, but it used to be very common for adult men to marry young girls across alot of cultures.

Back then it would have been alot more acceptable than it is now.

All modern religions are have ideas that are based on things that are completely unacceptable nowadays.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

This may be a surprise to you newspresenter, but it used to be very common for adult men to marry young girls across alot of cultures.

Back then it would have been alot more acceptable than it is now.

All modern religions are have ideas that are based on things that are completely unacceptable nowadays.

We can still point out that it's wrong.

LOL I do like Italians. They get tense and nervous if more than three people aren't talking (preferably shouting or, ideally, shouting and weeping) simultaniously.

Originally Posted by fubar

Wonder if all the lady presenters have cleavage like her

I was waiting for each one to leap from her bra and join in the argument.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

We can still point out that it's wrong.

Yes, but when you think about it if you go back that far there would be ALOT of things we now call wrong, like killing people because they are gay or a woman who cheats on her husband.

That was acceptable back then, but no longer.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Yes, but when you think about it if you go back that far there would be ALOT of things we now call wrong, like killing people because they are gay or a woman who cheats on her husband.

That was acceptable back then, but no longer.

Excuse me?
I thought honour killings were all the rage under Sharia Law.
Iran hang people from crane jibs because they are homosexual.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

This may be a surprise to you newspresenter, but it used to be very common for adult men to marry young girls across alot of cultures.

Back then it would have been alot more acceptable than it is now.

All modern religions are have ideas that are based on things that are completely unacceptable nowadays.

I know, what we call incest was considered acceptable. Jesus had sex with his half sister Mary Magdeline.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Yes, but when you think about it if you go back that far there would be ALOT of things we now call wrong, like killing people because they are gay or a woman who cheats on her husband.

That was acceptable back then, but no longer.

That's the difference between Islam and other religions, they haven't quite reached the point where the recognise the difference between now and then. (hence the crane jibs and stonings)

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

This may be a surprise to you newspresenter, but it used to be very common for adult men to marry young girls across alot of cultures.

Back then it would have been alot more acceptable than it is now.

All modern religions are have ideas that are based on things that are completely unacceptable nowadays.

Young girls is one thing Kiwi,children is something else,has never been acceptable then ,now or ever. How this Child raping,murdering camel jockey got so many followers is beyond me

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

That's the difference between Islam and other religions, they haven't quite reached the point where the recognise the difference between now and then. (hence the crane jibs and stonings)

Many Christian churches spout homophobia still, and use blackmail to get people to join their faith.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

I know, what we call incest was considered acceptable. Jesus had sex with his half sister Mary Magdeline.

Jesus did not have sex with anyone.
Why post such trash.

Originally Posted by Barry

Jesus did not have sex with anyone.
Why post such trash.

Sure

Originally Posted by Barry

Jesus did not have sex with anyone.

Originally Posted by Barry

Why post such trash

Since there's nothing in the bible to say that he didn't either, how can you be so certain? In fact during this time period it would have been far more uncommon for a young Jewish preacher not to have been married, and lack of biblical evidence for a marriage doesn't automatically mean there wasn't one.

In fact if you look in some of the Gnostic gospels, particularly in that of Philip, it explicitly says that "Mary Magdalene is the companion of Jesus", a contemporary euphemism for wife, and there are even references to a descendant - “there exists the mystery of the Son of Man and the mystery of the son of the Son of Man”. You might argue that because they're not currently biblical they're invalid, however the Gnostic gospels were only removed from the early bible by the Council of Nicea in 325 because they did not 'fit' with the then thinking of the early Christian church under Constantine. The fact that they we're removed because they presented an alternative version of Jesus' life to that which the then Christian church as trying to promote, adverse spin if you like, doesn't make them historically any less valid than the four gospels which were retained.

Simply because you want to believe that Jesus was celibate doesn't mean he was.

Originally Posted by Midas

Since there's nothing in the bible to say that he didn't either, how can you be so certain? In fact during this time period it would have been far more uncommon for a young Jewish preacher not to have been married, and lack of biblical evidence for a marriage doesn't automatically mean there wasn't one.

In fact if you look in some of the Gnostic gospels, particularly in that of Philip, it explicitly says that "Mary Magdalene is the companion of Jesus", a contemporary euphemism for wife, and there are even references to a descendant - “there exists the mystery of the Son of Man and the mystery of the son of the Son of Man”. You might argue that because they're not currently biblical they're invalid, however the Gnostic gospels were only removed from the early bible by the Council of Nicea in 325 because they did not 'fit' with the then thinking of the early Christian church under Constantine. The fact that they we're removed because they presented an alternative version of Jesus' life to that which the then Christian church as trying to promote, adverse spin if you like, doesn't make them historically any less valid than the four gospels which were retained.

Simply because you want to believe that Jesus was celibate doesn't mean he was.

A long post which proves nothing either way.

It is tripe to post that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. It was probably only posted to insult Bible believers, I shouldn't have bitten.

And what had it got to do with Daniela?

Originally Posted by Barry

A long post which proves nothing either way.

It is tripe to post that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. It was probably only posted to insult Bible believers, I shouldn't have bitten.

Maybe it doesn't prove anything. What it does do is illustrate that there's always more than one possible answer to any question concerning something we have no definitive evidence for. It also goes to illustrate that those who choose to believe something just because it's in the bible are frequently blinded as to usually far more plausible alternatives.

And what had it got to do with Daniela?

Nothing directly I'll agree, but it seemed rude not to point out the full facts surrounding your remark

Originally Posted by Barry

Jesus did not have sex with anyone.
Why post such trash.

He did, and not just normal sex, but what we call peadophillier and incest. Jesus was a communist, a bi-sexual orgy consuming monster. He wasn't the only one, because in his era, peadophillier etc was considered relatively normal.

If Jesus were alive today, he would be shocked at the way christians see the sexual act. He would call on his followers to share their bodies with eachother, young and old, man or woman.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

He did, and not just normal sex, but what we call peadophillier and incest. Jesus was a communist, a bi-sexual orgy consuming monster. He wasn't the only one, because in his era, peadophillier etc was considered relatively normal.

If Jesus were alive today, he would be shocked at the way christians see the sexual act. He would call on his followers to share their bodies with eachother, young and old, man or woman.

I'll ignore this rubbish, as it has no basis whatsoever, peadophillier?? [sic]

newspresenter, it is clear from your posts that you are here to provoke a response. Perhaps one of those on forums that didn't have enough attention as a child. You are a troll.

Originally Posted by Barry

I'll ignore this rubbish, as it has no basis whatsoever, peadophillier?? [sic]

newspresenter, it is clear from your posts that you are here to provoke a response. Perhaps one of those on forums that didn't have enough attention as a child. You are a troll.

Try and keep to the subject Barry.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Yes, but when you think about it if you go back that far there would be ALOT of things we now call wrong, like killing people because they are gay or a woman who cheats on her husband.

That was acceptable back then, but no longer.

Woaaa there Green Fruit... If the Musies had their way, they would be forcing their Sharia law on all. Currently our peace loving Musies like to do a wee bit of stoning. I mean throwing stones onto gays and woman who step out of line. Not geting stoned on a joint.
Oh, and the woman who gets out of line... What that means is, she was raped!
Hairy Fruit, this still goes on. And it is public knowledge that they plan to impliment Sharia law in full in England.
Now next time you try and compare Christians with Muslims, remember, Christ didn't want the sinful woman to be stoned. He shamed the crowd into dropping their weapons.

Starting to think that you live in Teletubby land... Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Lala, Po and Kiwi.


Time for me to get my tubby tustard.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

He did, and not just normal sex, but what we call peadophillier and incest. Jesus was a communist, a bi-sexual orgy consuming monster. He wasn't the only one, because in his era, peadophillier etc was considered relatively normal.

If Jesus were alive today, he would be shocked at the way christians see the sexual act. He would call on his followers to share their bodies with eachother, young and old, man or woman.

You been taking something, News Presenter?
I honestly didn't expect this from you.
Where in any of the writing on Christ does it suggest that Jesus had any hanky panky? I ask you, is it in any of the four gospels? Three of which are first hand accounts. One, second hand. Or is it in any of the writtings of discreditors?
I sure would like to know.

But honestly, News Presenter. This post has genuinly surprised me. I expect this off Kiwi, Neo or Smithy. Not you.

Originally Posted by British

Now next time you try and compare Christians with Muslims, remember, Christ didn't want the sinful woman to be stoned. He shamed the crowd into dropping their weapons.

and don't you forget that Muslims also follow the teachings of Christ.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

and don't you forget that Muslims also follow the teachings of Christ.

No, they don't follow the teachings of Christ, because He said that He was the Son of God. (It was indirectly).
He also confirmed that He was the Messiah predicted by the prophets.
He also said that anyone believing in Him would be saved. (John 3:16)
(No need for any pillars!)
He also said,
"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and Last."

He also predicted that many antichrists would come along... and they have!

Originally Posted by Barry

No, they don't follow the teachings of Christ, because He said that He was the Son of God. (It was indirectly).
He also confirmed that He was the Messiah predicted by the prophets.
He also said that anyone believing in Him would be saved. (John 3:16)
(No need for any pillars!)
He also said,
"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and Last."

He also predicted that many antichrists would come along... and they have!

Barry, whilst I agree with you on most things, and respect you for having a decent head on your sholders. I really do believe that Kiwi was one of those spotty, snotty kids whole got great pleasure from poking the family dog with a stick. Then goes running to daddy when the dog turns on the hairy fruit.
I do believe the likes of you and I would employ our time better just ignoring it.

Originally Posted by Barry

No, they don't follow the teachings of Christ, because He said that He was the Son of God. (It was indirectly).
He also confirmed that He was the Messiah predicted by the prophets.
He also said that anyone believing in Him would be saved. (John 3:16)
(No need for any pillars!)
He also said,
"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and Last."

Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them and to Him do we submit." Qur'an, 3:84

Jesus Christ: A Prophet of Islam :: Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Barry

He also predicted that many antichrists would come along... and they have!

So you are labeling Muslims as the antichrist?

Originally Posted by British

Barry, whilst I agree with you on most things, and respect you for having a decent head on your sholders.

LOL, Brit with all the division and hatred you BNP'ers preach, ^^ that

Originally Posted by British

I really do believe that Kiwi was one of those spotty, snotty kids whole got great pleasure from poking the family dog with a stick. Then goes running to daddy when the dog turns on the hairy fruit.

Um, what?

Originally Posted by British

I do believe the likes of you and I would employ our time better just ignoring it.

What more would we expect from the intolerant people like you.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

[/COLOR]
So you are labeling Muslims as the antichrist?

Mohammed certainly fits the description.

I will take British's advice now.
So, run along Kiwi 1691
1.6.91 - your D.O.B. perhaps? Perhaps explains quite a lot.