FBI CRIME STATISTICS

[Hot Neighbourhood]

Ye

That makes no sense considering the middle east and africa have the highest rates of incest

Cum skin are not number one in incest genes, that award goes to bombers, but definitely number one in pedophile genes

 

[Deleted member 6128]

View attachment 1241768

It’s too blurry

 

[Marsiere214]

It’s too blurry

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

that's not what the verse says you fucking retarded, you're embarrassing yourself

Here you have again the verse, genius.

According to Matthew 5: 17-19, Jesus said: "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. For truly I tell you, 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” as not being abolished. What did he mean by this phrase? The “Law and the Prophets” was a regular expression the people of Jesus used to refer to the entire Old Testament, according to the bible. (See Matthew 7: 12; 22: 40; Acts 24: 14; 28: 23; Romans 3: 21.)

There are many other verses in which Jesus condemns people because of not following Old Testament, and not only that but he orders people to follow it even more than the Pharisees according to the Bible. You arguments are ridiculous and emotional, and we both know it.

The few verses in which Jesus contradicts somehow the law have been demonstrated as fabrications.

For example the story of the prostitute in which, supposedly Jesus decides to not stone her contradicting the Old Testament law is deemed as a forgery by Biblical Scholarship, both christian and non christian. Just the other day i was speaking about it here.

The verse in question is found in John 8: 7 and it is the next: 'When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

This story is a fabrication according to biblical scholarship and historians. First, it is only to be found in the modern Gospel of John, such an event which we would consider significantly important doesn't appear in the rest of the Gospels and testimonies.

But even most importantly, the story is completely absent in all of the ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of John, it is not found in 'Papyrus 66', 'Papyrus 75' both written around 200 C.E. It is neither to be found in the Codex Sinaiticus nor in the Codex Vaticanus, both from around 300 C.E.

All of the oldest manuscripts of John seem to skip that story, they all lack John 7: 53-8: 11. The first time this story appears is in the Codex Bezae which dates from between approximately 400 C.E. and 500 C.E.

Also, several biblical scholars have noted that the writing style of this story in particular is clearly distinct from the writing that can be found both before and after the story. It uses a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the rest of the gospel, again, suggesting that it was written by a different hand. Very few biblical scholars will argue in favor of this passage being authentic.

 

[Dr. Greenberg]

We don't worship Prophets, we just follow them, and we do so based on whetwr we prove our way of life as truthful or not.

First a lot of people regard in your society them as heroes and have statues wherever you go. Second, your entire society is, in it's majority, the result of the actions of those people

Also so what if you follow or don't follow them? Prove me that under an agnostic-atheist world view that a kid has more value than a bacteria if you can.

I don't believe there is such a thing as objective morality, hence a kid objectively has no more value than a bacteria. Sad, right?

Subjectively, according to my own morals and many others, the kid has more value than bacteria. This is evolutionarily rooted just like empathy. Empathy helped our species to survive.

 

[Cali Yuga]

7 in 10 child rapists in America are White males according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to the FBI, White males are 4 times more likely per capita to rape or sexually abuse a child than any other male group in the U.S. Per the BJS, White males account for 30% of the overall population in the U.S., yet they comprise 72% of all convicted child rapists.

Why do white men love kids?

this is with hispanics lumped into white (same thing they do in most of the crime stats, have to do close analysis to disentangle)

hispanics are insanely high in this shit, their age of consent is like 12 in most of the country and a lot of immigrants just marry kids and dont thin anything of it and get caught when they show up to the hospital with their thirteen year old pregnant wife for prenatal or whatever.

Oklahoma man arrested after 12-year-old arrives at Tulsa hospital 9 months pregnant

An Oklahoma man was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree rape for allegedly impregnating a 12-year-old girl.

news.yahoo.com

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

I don't believe there is such a thing as objective morality, hence a kid objectively has no more value than a bacteria. Sad, right?

Then you have no basis for criticizing us in regards to morality.

Subjectively, according to my own morals and many others, the kid has more value than bacteria. This is evolutionarily rooted just like empathy. Empathy helped our species to survive.

You said it, subjectively based on both genetics and environment, therefore you don't have any basis to criticize us.

 

[Dr. Greenberg]

Then you have no basis for criticizing us in regards to morality.

You said it, subjectively based on both genetics and environment, therefore you don't have any basis to criticize us.

Of course I do? I have my own morals. I think raping a 9 year old is wrong and I would never view anyone who did it the "ideal man". Your argument is constructed and totally flawed.

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

Of course I do? I have my own morals. I think raping a 9 year old is wrong

I agree, rape is wrong in Islam, condemned with death sentence. The Prophet married Aisha both with her consent and of that of her parents.

Meanwhile, you still don't have an objective basis to even prove me a kid is more valuable than a bacteria, therefore it's meaningless to argue

and I would never view anyone who did it the "ideal man". Your argument is constructed and totally flawed.

Those are your subjective morals and standards, which, on the other hand apart from that your ancestors did hold those practices, according to you, everyone before the 18th century should have never married at a young age.

Therefore according to your world view the human race should have risked it's total extinction by not allowing young and teenage marriage, and all of it is based on the egoism that you were born in the 21st century in a country which has a life expectancy of 70 to 85 years old and all kinds of needs covered.

 

[Dr. Greenberg]

I agree, rape is wrong in Islam, condemned with death sentence. The Prophet married Aisha both with her consent and of that of her parents.

Meanwhile, you still don't have an objective basis to even prove me a kid is more valuable than a bacteria, therefore it's meaningless to argue

Those are your subjective morals and standards, which, on the other hand apart from that your ancestors did hold those practices, according to you, everyone before the 18th century should have never married at a young age.

Therefore according to your world view the human race should have risked it's total extinction by not allowing young and teenage marriage, and all of it is based on the egoism that you were born in the 21st century in a country which has a life expectancy of 70 to 85 years old and all kinds of needs covered.

You're saying you can't argue with someone who doesn't believie in objective morality? I can't be argued with because I have a different view on morality?

Yes, it was normal back then and perhaps the Aisha thing is a bad argument. But then again, isn't the prohet expected to be the perfect man? Better than others?

We've argued before but it is probably pointless. None of us is going to fundamentally change opinion. I was kind of insulting and agressive before but that's how I am on the internet. In the end, I respect your belief.

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

You're saying you can't argue with someone who doesn't believie in objective morality? I can't be argued with because I have a different view on morality?

It's not about being different. It's about that under your worldview you don't believe there is a correct and an incorrect morality, therefore it's meaningless to argue.

Yes, it was normal back then and perhaps the Aisha thing is a bad argument. But then again, isn't the prohet expected to be the perfect man? Better than others?

Well, it happens that he is.

Find me someone in history that started his life as an orphan on a remote desert and ended up being the most influential human being during 14 straight centuries, to the point that many countries nowadays still base a great deal of their laws on his moral views, and to the point of almost a quarter of the world being able to sacrifice themselves for him.

I said it like 15 times and i will repeat it again, show me a single man in history which picked up a people who saw writing and reading as a weakness, a people who fought eachother constantly, who saw vices like Alcohol (just look at the USA when they tried and failed), Betting, Prostitution, who buried female newborns just because they were females, and in a matter of 80 years in a tremendous disadvantage he inspired them to abandon all those things and made them conquer territories from Spain to China in that span of time, and converted them in the most advanced society of the world for centuries and centuries in many fields.

Why don't you know or reflect on all the good things he did? I will scratch a biy the surface and show you an example of some of them.
Why don't they show you that he is the man who said: "The best house among the Muslims is the house in which orphans are well treated. The worst house among the Muslims is the house in which orphans are ill treated.". Of course they won't dare to show you when he said according to Abu Dawud: The Prophet is in paradise, the martyrs are in paradise, the children who die are in paradise, and the infant buried alive is in paradise (This last one refers to an arab practice of burying alive female infants since a lot of them saw them as an economical charge rather than a blessing, a practice which the Prophet Muhammad made forbidden and condemned).
On a different narration it is reported that he said: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, the miscarried fetus will carry his mother by his umbilical cord into Paradise, if she was seeking its reward.”

Why don't they show his great character, like, for example, his mercy towards animals: Once a man suffered from thirst while he was walking on a journey. When he found a well, he climbed down into it and drank from it. Then he came out and saw a dog lolling its tongue from thirst and licking the ground. The man said: this dog has suffered thirst just as I have suffered from it. So he climbed down into the well, filled his shoe with water, and caught it in his mouth as he climbed up; then he gave the dog a drink. Allah appreciated this deed and so He forgave him." Or this narration: It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, is there a reward for charity even for the animals?” He said: In every living being there is a reward for charity. Or when he said: If you had mercy on the sheep, then Allah will have mercy on you twice.

Or when he forbade racism in one of the most racist societies of human history (alayhi a salat wa salam/blessings and peace be upon him) said: A white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good actions.”, and they don't show you when Abu Dharr called in an insulting way to Bilal (radiyallahu anhuma) "Son of a black mother" and the Beloved Muhammad said to him “O Abu Dharr! Have you ridiculed him on account of his mother? Indeed you are a man in whom there remain traits of ignorance!” Abu Dharr wept and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah to forgive me.” He left the Masjid weeping and when he saw Bilal, he put his head on the ground and said to Bilal, “O Bilal, I will not move from my position till you put your foot on my head. You are the honorable and I am the disgraced.”

Of course, they won't show you that even in the context of war, he ordered to us the muslims according to narrations this when he could have easily skip it and benefit from the bad way: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery (1) or deviate from the right path (2). You must not mutilate dead bodies (3). Neither kill a child (4), nor a woman (5). nor an aged man (6). Bring no harm to the trees (7), nor burn them with fire (8), especially those which are fruitful. Slay not ary of the enemy's flock. save for your food (9). You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services (christians); leave them alone (10)", and, according to another narration he ordered us: "Set out for Jihad in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah. Do not lay hands on the old verging on death, on women, children and babes. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield and do good, for Allah loves the virtuous and the pious."

Or when he constantly encouraged charity like in this narration: 'He is not a believer whose stomach is filled while his neighbor goes hungry.'" Or when he said according to this one: “A kind word is a form of charity.” Or when it was narrated that the last messenger said: "When the human being dies, his deeds end except for three: ongoing charity, beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who prays for him."

Why don't they show you how much he encouraged the people to earn and seek knowledge, like for example when he said: "Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim." Or when according to other narration he said: "Whoever goes out seeking knowledge is in the way of Allah until he returns." Or when according to Imam Malik he said: "It is not befitting for anyone with knowledge to give up learning."

Or when The Messenger of Allah (alayhi a salat wa salam) said: “Whoever among you sees evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.”

Or when The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah."

And i can assure you that all of this os just a small taste of the good he did.

It is not as easy as just "Well yeah, he did that but i will dismiss it because he did such and such", no, show me a single person in history that changed an entire society morals and behaviour like he did coming from such humble begginings and achieved all that, it doesn't matter who you bring me, Jesus, Moses (Peace and blessings be upon them), Napoleon, Genghis Khan, show me just one.

We've argued before but it is probably pointless. None of us is going to fundamentally change opinion. I was kind of insulting and agressive before but that's how I am on the internet. In the end, I respect your belief.

You know i always respect as long as you respect.

 

[cracka]

you keep doing this gay copy and paste when you aren't listening to what I am telling you, you are listening with closed ears. I am saying yes, he did not come to abolish the law but rather he fulfilled it, there is still a decent overlap of OT into NT, of course there are things in the OT that cross into NT and he preaches that. But, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh created the difference in the ceremonial, civil, and moral law. The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery. Your arguments are weak.