[TeamManager]

@Zelda,

Men like John Calvin, Martin Luther etc

[Coach]

TeamManager,
That is a cop-out and anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see it. The verse clearly say (unless I got a wrong version"...

----------------------------------------------------------
32. I should like you to be free of anxieties."An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.

33. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife'

34. and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, catholics priest follow this advice to the letter because they abstain from marriage in order to "please the Lord". If Paul doesn't recommend celibacy, why do the Catholics priests live in celibacy? They ought to set an example, both moral and spiritual for their congregation and choosing celibacy shows that they hold it to be more admirable than the institution of marriage.

You say...

"This question of theirs expressed the idea that, since sex drives create so many problems, it is best to get away and forget it all, and the apostle's answer is that there is nothing wrong with celibacy; it is all right to be single."

You have science and history working against this theory. History - a history of abuse on the young (alter) boys has been recorded in the history of the Catholic church which comes from the perverted nature of someone supressing their natural inclination. Science - Some people can be asexual (very small number) but most (espe men) havea high sex drive and according to recent research (men) think of sex every three seconds. If you think they lived in a highly sexualised society, you better think again; sex has never been advertised in the west like it is today.





>Tell me about this ...
>1. the reason a muslim woman is made to drape in cloth to make
>her unattractive for the lustful manly eyes instead of the men
>being educated to control their lust......

This is a view held by those who read verses that suit their agenda. Look up the numerous verses and hadiths that tell men to lower their gaze, avoid being with the opposite sex in secluded area etc. Look at teh society we live in today, if a woman wears a mini skirt, she will be stared at and desired (raped in some extreme cases), but if she dresses modestly, she is respected and not treated like a sexual object. This is areality and that's why women are told to dress modestly.



>2. Why do many muslims similarly miss out 'verses' and turn to
>violence/terror etc in the name of religion.

You apparently haven't read what I posted above. I explained that tehre are elements that misuse and intepret certain verses to suit their needs, they are wrong and do not find any support anywhere in the Quran, hadith and the history of Islam.


>
>Do you think that your prophet lived and set a good
>'sexual-life' example.

Yes he did! He was married to one woman for most of his life (until she passed away). The others he married later (besides Aisha) were middle-aged widows and divorcees who'd not have anyone to care and support them. If he was a womaniser as the Christians paint him to be, don't you think he'd take young women who haven't had children or been married before? What did he use his wealth for? he was offered to be the King of Mecca (which would mean a life of luxury in every sense of the word) but rejected in and continued spreading the worship of one God.

[satjas]

Hey Coach,

you asked me where i got that crap from? Your holy kooran and ur hadiths via www.faithfreedom.org...i copied and pasted it cos going through your crap point by point is a hell of a waste of time.......something your royal highness on your royal high horse can never never never realize.

oooh and you know when you say 'OUT of Context', because it was somewhere in history?? Isn't this Allah the knower of everything the very person/thing? who wrote this and because of this it becomes a timeless rule?...something that you apply NOW?? Unless ofcourse you want to discard it as being history.....but your royal highness on your royal high horse can never never never realize.

It is a well known fact that muslims including those as seemingly clever as yourself will resort to abuse and mockery when they cannot explain themselves......something your royal highness is exhibiting so brilliantly here.


from your royal daftness......the paradigm shifter.....God's friend.

[Coach]

satjas,
It's alright mate. I knew you cannot defend what you posted since you just copy-n-paste them from an Islamophobic site. It's easier for people like you to just toss it on (disguised as a fact) and not even attept or bother to defend that kind of crap.

If you have no clue about the crap you cut-n-paste and can't even bother to do a LITTLE research to see whether there's some element of truth in it...just keep it to yourself next time. If the faithfreedom goons said (hypothetically) that Muslims killed a million Jews and a million Christians in 630 AD, your royal daftness would not hesitate using it as arsenal against Muslims. Your hate is blinding your reasonning and judgement. You can shuv the "scientific" and "truth" crap where the sun don't shine because you are a hypocrite when it comes to the means and ways you use to discuss and debate issues.

[TeamManager]

>TeamManager,
>That is a cop-out and anyone with an ounce of
>intelligence can see it.

OK. Guess if you had read to the end you could have found the link.

>Now, catholics priest follow this advice to the letter
>because they abstain from marriage in order to "please
>the Lord".

Please read more and you will find the passage that talks about a Bishop/Deacon must be the husband of one wife ...............

Are they really trying to 'please the Lord' or simply copying other 'credit-earning religions'???


>You have science and history working against this theory.

They are simply evil men in sheep skin. BTW, read the news (french on-going court case)and you will see even married men abusing children. Priest or no-priest, it wrong.

>and according to recent research (men) think of sex every three seconds.

If thats the average, I pity the men who think so much and have given us the 3 second mark


>Look at teh society we live in today, if a
>woman wears a mini skirt, she will be stared at and desired (raped in some extreme cases), but if she dresses
>modestly, she is respected and not treated like a sexual
>object. This is areality and that's why women are told
>to dress modestly.

Modest is good BUT coving the ears and eyes is past modesty...so cruel.
150yrs ago our people used to wear less than minis and nobody got overly excited. Why?


>You apparently haven't read what I posted above.

True, you caught me.

>I explained
>that tehre are elements that misuse and intepret certain
>verses to suit their needs, they are wrong and do not find any
>support anywhere in the Quran, hadith and the history of
>Islam.

I watched a tape of some fellows beheading an American and before the actual act, the read long passages of the quran.

>If he was a womaniser as the Christians paint him to be, >don't you think he'd take young women who haven't had children or been married before?

First, very few Christians are aware of muhammeds appetite for his wife's maid and the other ladies. I only learned of the story after the website was posted on mashada.
Secondly, a womaniser can also love older women.

[satjas]

Hey Coach

>It's easier for people like you to just toss it on (disguised
>as a fact) and not even attept or bother to defend that kind
>of crap.

www.faithfreedom.org is one of the best sites that has done alot more research than others which i have read and i have read the kooran enough to know it is inconsequential in this day and age. And before you go around accusing me, you have no idea how much i have researched on this topic so just take it easy on the bullcrap you spit out of your mouth.

>Your hate is blinding your reasonning and
>judgement.

Coach i have no hate for you or your beliefs, only pity. Where i come from people have evolved to a higher level of thought.

> You can shuv the "scientific" and "truth" crap
>where the sun don't shine because you are a hypocrite when it
>comes to the means and ways you use to discuss and debate
>issues.

Ofcourse the muslim in you has to say that to justify your lack of a logical response...and about shoving things up ones ar$e you can tell us from your experience since you seem in the know.

I try and debate on a reasonable ground whenever possible......in your case i had to stoop quite low.....however i will not discuss reasonable issues henceforth with your royal highness.

thanks but no thanks Coach.

-the paradigm shifter......God's friend.

[Jibril Cessay]

Makeda, the Ethiopian Queen who slept with Solomon and took his seed back to her motherland is also an influencial person in Christianity. Because of her, the Falasha are back in Israel to reclaim their inheritance. Because of Makeda, Orthodox Christianity in Ethiopia is much older than the version of Christianity practised today. Christianity started in Africa.

[Coach]

sajtas,
>I try and debate on a reasonable ground whenever
>possible......in your case i had to stoop quite
>low.....however i will not discuss reasonable issues
>henceforth with your royal highness.


Very "reasonable" indeed. Here is a rerun of what has been said so far...

satjas: "All 67 out of 68 wars of Muhammad were offensive. They are called qazwah (raid, ambush, sudden attack). That is how Muhammad waged his wars. He raided, massacred and looted civilians with no warning. The one defensive war, 'ditch' was not fought. That is why the Islamic terrorism 'jihad' will continue until the West "offers peace". This was made clear by Bin Laden.)"

Coach: "Why don't you tell me which these 67 offensive wars were that were waged by the Prophet? Tell me where civilians were raided and looted by Muslims during the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH)."

satjas: "...i copied and pasted it cos going through your crap point by point is a hell of a waste of time.......something your royal highness on your royal high horse can never never never realize."



How can you not defend what you say and have the nerve to describe yourself as "reasonable"? Where I come from, people don't say things they can't stand up to.

It is obvious that you have no wish to discuss Islam in depth (because you only cut-n-paste without knowledge) and that's why you don't want to discuss anythiang "reasonable" with me. You are a coward who gladly copies stuff that cannot stand on their own and then run like a scared rabbit when confronted.

I'm not dying to discuss issues with you...but remember, when you spread lies about islam, I'll be tehre confronting them.





TM,
I'll get back on you mate, I'm in a hurry at the moment.

[satjas]

Hey coach,

>It is obvious that you have no wish to discuss Islam in depth
>(because you only cut-n-paste without knowledge) and that's
>why you don't want to discuss anythiang "reasonable" with me.
>You are a coward who gladly copies stuff that cannot stand on
>their own and then run like a scared rabbit when confronted.

Hmmm......you scare me! dah!! There's nothing i have to say about your beliefs that others before have not, thus i do not need to rehash the same stuff just for your sake coach. if you have the guts then you should try and take on the challenge put forward in www.faithfreedom.org by ali sina.

And here's more of what your ilk do.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/comments/MComments.htm

>I'm not dying to discuss issues with you...but remember, when
>you spread lies about islam, I'll be tehre confronting them.

Coach i am not and will never be interested in islam, the truth lies in the lies in your belief system........dah! did not understand? let me make that clear.......your lies are your truth and that is the truth, your lies.......still didn't understand? you may never.......forget it!!

I only started reading alot more about the islamic faith after 9/11. But ofcourse even that is a lie to you since that never happened, oh and the Bali and spanish bombings? How come every single one of those was perpetrated by people of the Islamic faith? Are these people misinterpreting the kooran or actually following it to the letter???

Coach, what a billion or more people are following may not necessarilly be the truth. I have not professed to following any religion on this forum but you have. And the way you have used foul or dirty language is devoid of religiousness. I have only retorted after your silly comments, which are sometimes said in stupid humour or irreverent mockery.

When all is said and done only history shall be the judge of who spoke the truth.

-The paradigm shifter.......God's friend.

[Coach]

>Hmmm......you scare me! dah!! There's nothing i have to say
>about your beliefs that others before have not, thus i do not
>need to rehash the same stuff just for your sake coach. if you
>have the guts then you should try and take on the challenge
>put forward in www.faithfreedom.org by ali sina.

This is not a scare tactic. It is quite simple...you said something that is a PURE LIE and when I asked you to back up your accusations with facts you 'ran away' (from the issue) and said "...i copied and pasted it cos going through your crap point by point is a hell of a waste of time...."

Tell me, how is this a balanced way of conducting a discussion? The people at faithfreedom and other Islamophobic sites have made it their duty to offend Islam. I do my part when I encounter their ilk elsewhere (like here and many other forums where I'm a member) but don't have the time/energy/zeal to go to their websites. This is Mashada, and not faithfreedom, remember that! If you insist in spreading lies about Islam then you better be capable of conducting a discussion without refering me to others.



>And here's more of what your ilk do.

>http://www.faithfreedom.org/comments/MComments.htm

Remember what I told you before, I can offer you hundreds of links that refute anything said in that site. So at the end of the day we will not benefit anything from this type of copy-paste or referring to websistes. If you have anything to say, use (preferebly) your own words. That's why I prefer to discuss with SAJTAS (since he's a mashadite and we are members here) and not the people of faithfreedom. If I wanted to engage them I'd be a member there don't you think?



>Coach i am not and will never be interested in islam, the
>truth lies in the lies in your belief system........dah!

It is not my job to get you interested in Islam, don't make it like I'm selling an ideology to you here. Faith is something that a heart/soul finds without coercion, you found you she-male god and are happy with it, good for you! Although I don't agree with you, you don't see me telling you that what you believe it is a lie.



>I only started reading alot more about the islamic faith after
>9/11. But ofcourse even that is a lie to you since that never
>happened, oh and the Bali and spanish bombings? How come every
>single one of those was perpetrated by people of the Islamic
>faith? Are these people misinterpreting the kooran or actually
>following it to the letter???


Oh how stimulating! So I don't believe that NY, Bali and Madrid were bombed? How did you figure that out genius? Because I thought I had a very different opinion on those events, not that it matters now (you've already judged and categorised me). Very refreshing!





> I have not professed to following
>any religion on this forum but you have. And the way you have
>used foul or dirty language is devoid of religiousness.

What language I use reflects my personality and not the religion of Islam; I wouldn't blame the Christians for the slave tradem colonialism or the two World Wars.


I have
>only retorted after your silly comments, which are sometimes
>said in stupid humour or irreverent mockery.

My silly comments? You speak untruths, when confronted you say that "going through your crap point by point is a hell of a waste of time". A very intellectual way of having a discussion!




>When all is said and done only history shall be the judge of
>who spoke the truth.


Yeah! Atleast at present we know you were spreading lies when you said what you said about Islam earlier on this thread.