Mr anony: Lololol..........Interesting.

And this is because breaking the law is not a crime?

Ignorance is a disease. People forget that they break the law a lot. Example;there is a legal limit that your tyres are not allowed to wear beyond. However, many people will go over that limit before they change their tyres. The police will only warn you if you are just a little beyond the limit. Does that make such a person (who goes over the limit) a criminal?

See how ignorant you are? Breaking the law doesnt ncessarily make you a criminal....comitting a crime does.

There is civil law and criminal law. I told you that you were ignorant.

Mr anony:
No sir, you don't get to cherry pick for your own convenience which laws soveriegn countries ought to have. If you claim that the missionaries committed a crime, then you must hold that your blaspheming brothers in Bangladesh committed a crime as well namely,
1. Illegal use of the internet
2. Offensive and Defamatory speech against the religion of the citizens of the land (similar to how you are calling for a ban on me for exposing the vile behavior of certain sodomites by claiming I am being "offensive"
3. Subversion of the sovereignty of the Bangladeshi nation

Ah...The benefits of being an atheist and a secularist freethinker. I am so beyond you when it comes to thinking. You are very shallow and narrow minded when it comes to law and philosophy of law.

The one thing a sensible freethinking person realises about the law is that there are no absolutes as there are limits to every law.

A country's sovereignty is limited by human rights and the effects of its actions on its neighbouring countries.

As long as a country belongs to the UN, it will always be queried for human rights abuses.

Blasphemy can never be a crime in any sensible country. End of story.

You are just obfuscating here. You clearly can not tell the difference between criminal law and civil law. This is why you can equate blasphemy to a crime. Read about libel and slander. Stop being ignorant.

Or wait, do you support blasphemy laws that criminalise blasphemy?

Mr anony:
. . . .unless you subscribe to a higher law than those made by men by which you judge the nations you have no basis upon which to claim some people are criminals and others aren't when they both committed crimes against law of the land they were inhabiting.

Do you even realise the silliness of what you are saying? Every law should consider human rights and its own practicality/logic.


It doesnt take a higher/divine law to realise the silliness of blasphemy laws. It only takes a common sense approach to law

Mr anony:
...and so the Japanaese shogunate was justified in killing and imprisoning the missionaries including Japanese citizens who converted to Christianity?

Anyone is justified in killing people who will try to enslave them. The missionaries didnt come to spread the gospel. They came to colonize and counquer like how they did to numerous countries around the world.

Guess what? Thanks for the silliness and dubious tactics of sneaking in Japanese converts. My point was about the missionaries only. Try again.

Mr anony:
Speculation

Speculation? Some people were deported, yet they managed to bribe and smuggle their way back into the country. Note that these same people's MO had already been established in Japan. The emperor had already seen what had happened in Phillipines and what was happening in Japan (the catholic converts being subject to Rome etc)

But no, it is specualtion that these missionaries were criminals. You are not serious

Mr anony:
Give a few examples of such missionaries

http://christianwatchindia./2010/10/07/partial-history-of-christian-missionary-atrocities/

A lot of different evil christian missionaries. For aNigerian to be even asking for examples.....wow, you are despicable

Mr anony:
yawn

smh

Mr anony:
I am sorry but you have made a very silly argument that doesn't follow. You might as well argue that Germany is prosperous today because it killed all those Jews in the 30s.

Even more ignorance.

Colonization leads to
-destruction of culture
-exploitation of the victim countries people and resource to the mother country

Avoiding colonization is great for any country. Japan is an example.

Now explain what my point has to do with Nazis killing Jews. You are deal with strawmen and diversions

Mr anony:
Christianity doesn't lead to colonialism. Don't be an 1diot. Imperial practices, nationalism and jingoist ideologies lead to colonialism.
You didn't study politics, economics or history past a basic level. and it is very evident. Please kindly keep quiet on things you don't know

Funny how your own words condemn you, Mr DoubleStandard

How ignorant and diversionary again.

You claimed that atheism leads to communism which I debunked.

Then, upon realising that you had no comeback, you then dubiously tried to mirror my argument to show that it is fallacious or has a double standard. However, it is clear that you are empty.

I NEVER SAID THAT CHRISTIANITY LEADS TO COLONIALISM. LYING STRAWMAN

Mr anony:
Interesting how you don't support unnecessary killings yet you think that the extermination of Christians in ancient Japan was necessary to Japan's current economic success.

yawn! lies, strawmen and twisting.


Try again

Mr anony:
Secondly, your personal swipe at me is irrelevant to the discussion and does not change the fact that you have defended the horrific persecution of a people just because of what they believe

yawn! lies, strawmen and twisting.


Try again

Mr anony:
Besides, I thought the bible was fiction to you. Nonetheless, your ignorance of biblical and ancient near east history is at it again. We shall explore that tangent upon a day but that day is not today. I'm not chasing your red herring tonight.

Red herring?


Kettle meet pot.


Go and read, my ignorant friend. The promised land was not empty. The isrealites drove out the native Canaanites from their own land.

Logicboy03:

Ignorance is a disease. People forget that they break the law a lot. Example;there is a legal limit that your tyres are not allowed to wear beyond. However, many people will go over that limit before they change their tyres. The police will only warn you if you are just a little beyond the limit. Does that make such a person (who goes over the limit) a criminal?

See how ignorant you are? Breaking the law doesnt ncessarily make you a criminal....comitting a crime does.

There is civil law and criminal law. I told you that you were ignorant.

Lol, the awkward moment when an ignorant person calls another person ignorant. Please go and read up on the difference between civil laws and criminal laws, also read up on the different classes/levels of crime. Breaking the law is a crime plain and simple. Those who wear their tyres beyond the legal limit can be rightfully punished by the law. It is a crime and falls under the category of criminal law irrespective of how minor it may be.
Civil law on the other hand is an entirely different category that does not deal with offenses against the state rather it is concerned with disputes between citizens. Please go and read a book and stop embarrassing yourself.

Ah...The benefits of being an atheist and a secularist freethinker. I am so beyond you when it comes to thinking. You are very shallow and narrow minded when it comes to law and philosophy of law.

Lol...of course your excellent mind is on display

The one thing a sensible freethinking person realises about the law is that there are no absolutes as there are limits to every law.

Interesting

A country's sovereignty is limited by human rights and the effects of its actions on its neighbouring countries.

Says who?

As long as a country belongs to the UN, it will always be queried for human rights abuses.

The UN does not own any country, and countries can decide to disregard or even leave the UN if they wish. Case in point: The US defied the UN to attack Iraq and nothing happened. Syria today is happily defying the UN and killing it's citizens and nothing is happening.

Blasphemy can never be a crime in any sensible country. End of story.

And who determines what is sensible? You?

You are just obfuscating here. You clearly can not tell the difference between criminal law and civil law. This is why you can equate blasphemy to a crime. Read about libel and slander. Stop being ignorant.

I would have taken you seriously if you knew what you were talking about, apparently you don't.

Or wait, do you support blasphemy laws that criminalise blasphemy?

What I support or don't support does not change the fact that blasphemy against Islam is a crime in Bangladesh.

Do you even realise the silliness of what you are saying? Every law should consider human rights and its own practicality/logic.

Why should every law consider human rights?

It doesnt take a higher/divine law to realise the silliness of blasphemy laws. It only takes a common sense approach to law

You seem to think that common sense=logicboy's opinion

Anyone is justified in killing people who will try to enslave them. The missionaries didnt come to spread the gospel. They came to colonize and counquer like how they did to numerous countries around the world.

This is simply untrue.

Guess what? Thanks for the silliness and dubious tactics of sneaking in Japanese converts. My point was about the missionaries only. Try again.

I think my point has been made there. The missionaries and the Japanese were killed and imprisoned for the same reason: their Christian faith. If it was really about "conquering and enslaving", there would be no need to kill the very Japanese people he was trying to "save" alongside the missionaries. You can't cherry pick your reasons as well as your victims.

Speculation? Some people were deported, yet they managed to bribe and smuggle their way back into the country. Note that these same people's MO had already been established in Japan. The emperor had already seen what had happened in Phillipines and what was happening in Japan (the catholic converts being subject to Rome etc)

But no, it is specualtion that these missionaries were criminals. You are not serious

Yet when they asked why they were being killed, they were told it was because they were trying to spread the Christian faith. It was their beliefs that condemned them. doesn't this contradict article 18 f the universal declaration of human rights which you claim to subscribe to?

http://christianwatchindia./2010/10/07/partial-history-of-christian-missionary-atrocities/

A lot of different evil christian missionaries. For aNigerian to be even asking for examples.....wow, you are despicable

Such missionaries who did wrong deserve punishment. This does not excuse anyone to punish people for crimes they have not committed just because someone else from their organization has committed such a crime. That's just like saying that the UK government is justified in deporting and imprisoning all muslims within it's borders just because of the terrorist activities of certain muslims around the world. It doesn't follow.

By the for a Nigerian, I am amazed at how you so quickly forget all the schools and hospitals that the missionaries provided your country, without them you will not have had any hope of education. Till today, missionaries are still going into the hinterlands building churches, schools and hospitals and bringing natives into the light.

Even more ignorance.

Colonization leads to
-destruction of culture
-exploitation of the victim countries people and resource to the mother country

Avoiding colonization is great for any country. Japan is an example.

Now explain what my point has to do with Nazis killing Jews. You are deal with strawmen and diversions

I am afraid you haven't shown any noteworthy link between Japan's lack of colonizations and it's current economic strength. Ethiopia for instance was never colonized yet it didn't turn out so great for them. On the other hand, the UAE was colonized by the British yet they have a thriving economy. The point is that the killing of Christian missionaries has nothing to do with Japan's current wealth just as the killing of Jews by Nazi Germany has nothing to do with Germany's current wealth even though Hitler believed the elimination of the Jews would solve Germany's problems

How ignorant and diversionary again.

You claimed that atheism leads to communism which I debunked.

Then, upon realising that you had no comeback, you then dubiously tried to mirror my argument to show that it is fallacious or has a double standard. However, it is clear that you are empty.

I NEVER SAID THAT CHRISTIANITY LEADS TO COLONIALISM. LYING STRAWMAN

Hahahahaha...what did you think you were doing when you were accusing Christian missionaries of colonialism for preaching the gospel?

You really need to stop using the word "debunked" you clearly don't know what it means.

yawn! lies, strawmen and twisting.


Try again



yawn! lies, strawmen and twisting.


Try again





Red herring?


Kettle meet pot.


Go and read, my ignorant friend. The promised land was not empty. The isrealites drove out the native Canaanites from their own land.

Yawn

Mr anony:
Lol, the awkward moment when an ignorant person calls another person ignorant. Please go and read up on the difference between civil laws and criminal laws, also read up on the different classes/levels of crime. Breaking the law is a crime plain and simple. Those who wear their tyres beyond the legal limit can be rightfully punished by the law. It is a crime and falls under the category of criminal law irrespective of how minor it may be.
Civil law on the other hand is an entirely different category that does not deal with offenses against the state rather it is concerned with disputes between citizens. Please go and read a book and stop embarrassing yourself.

Please, reread my comment and try to find out where I said that the law on tyres is covered by civil law. See how you lie and strawman?

The point with the tyres is very simple; breaking the law doesnt mean that one is a criminal

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime


The law about the tyres takes a prohibitive approach. You won't be tried for being a little over the limit, just as you wouldnt be tried for dropping a sweet wrapper on the floor (which is also illegal). Does dropping a sweet wrapper on the floor make one a criminal?

Furthermore, you an break the law and be tried in a civil case. I hope you knew that.


Thanks for the unnecessary lecture on the diff between civil and criminal law., Mr Strawman

Mr anony:
Lol...of course your excellent mind is on display

Of course

Mr anony:
The UN does not own any country, and countries can decide to disregard or even leave the UN if they wish. Case in point: The US defied the UN to attack Iraq and nothing happened. Syria today is happily defying the UN and killing it's citizens and nothing is happening.

No one said the UN owns any country.
Noone said that countries cant disregard the UN.


Your comment is irrelevant to the point again. Strawman Anony.

The point remains that human rights should be considered before any law is passed. This is a simple practical and fair approach. The EU court of justice has set precedence for this as the UK govt has lost cases due to the ECJ overruling their decisions based on human rights principles

Mr anony:
What I support or don't support does not change the fact that blasphemy against Islam is a crime in Bangladesh.

How does this then relate to illegal immigration and smuggling?

Are you then saying that these are not legitimate crimes because a ridiculous government criminalised blasphemy? Do you see how silly your point is?

One is a clear crime that not one government or sane person disagrees with. The other is a law that no progressive country recognizes

Mr anony:
Why should every law consider human rights?

Are you being silly?

Is this the time for silly questions?

Why should Anony not molest his cousin?

Mr anony:
I think my point has been made there. The missionaries and the Japanese were killed and imprisoned for the same reason: their Christian faith. If it was really about "conquering and enslaving", there would be no need to kill the very Japanese people he was trying to "save" alongside the missionaries. You can't cherry pick your reasons as well as your victims.

My comment had nothing to do with Jpanese christians. And no, your point has never been made. Sorry.

First, you omit the clear part where your own source confirmed that these missionaries were deported and they smuggled themselves back in. That is clearly criminal.

Secondly, you omit the clear colonization issue that even your source confirms.


Thirdly, you will not get me to talk about the Japanese christians, no matter how hard you try. I know that you are obfuscating. You need to change goalposts. I never mentioned or defended the actions of the Japanese christians.


Focus on the point. Your missionaries were commiting criminal acts. Clean and clear.

Mr anony:
Yet when they asked why they were being killed, they were told it was because they were trying to spread the Christian faith. It was their beliefs that condemned them. doesn't this contradict article 18 f the universal declaration of human rights which you claim to subscribe to?

What? Source? Why do you lie?

My point remains in sole regards to the missionaries that committed crimes. They were killed for their crimes which Ifelt needed a lesser punishment in imprisonment

Mr anony:
[b]Such missionaries who did wrong deserve punishment. [/b]This does not excuse anyone to punish people for crimes they have not committed just because someone else from their organization has committed such a crime. That's just like saying that the UK government is justified in deporting and imprisoning all muslims within it's borders just because of the terrorist activities of certain muslims around the world. It doesn't follow.

Strawmanning and changing goalposts. Your missionaries had already committed crimes of smuggling, bribery and illegal immigration. Try again. They were also found guilty of conspiracy to colonize and conquer.


As for the bolded part of your comment....did you notice that you accepted the crimes of missionaries in the same era as the Japanese missionaries which were consistent with imperialism? Do you also notice that you want these same japanese missionaries who were smugglers and illegal immigrants to go scot free while claiming that missionaries that did wrong should be punished?


Furthermore, thanks for admitting the evils of some of your christian missionaries

Mr anony:
By the for a Nigerian, I am amazed at how you so quickly forget all the schools and hospitals that the missionaries provided your country, without them you will not have had any hope of education. Till today, missionaries are still going into the hinterlands building churches, schools and hospitals and bringing natives into the light.

You do realise that your missionaries engaged in the slavery of Nigerians for 300 years before the first school was built.

With or without missionaries,, we would have had schools in Nigeria. Take a look at Japan.

Mr anony:
I am afraid you haven't shown any noteworthy link between Japan's lack of colonizations and it's current economic strength. Ethiopia for instance was never colonized yet it didn't turn out so great for them. On the other hand, the UAE was colonized by the British yet they have a thriving economy. The point is that the killing of Christian missionaries has nothing to do with Japan's current wealth just as the killing of Jews by Nazi Germany has nothing to do with Germany's current wealth even though Hitler believed the elimination of the Jews would solve Germany's problems

Strawmanning again. Have you ever wondered why so many people have accepted my coinage "Anonyism"? lol


Just look at your comment in bold- I did not say that economic greatness comes from not being colonized. The point was simply that not being colonized leaves your better off than being colonized.


Your nonsense about Nazi killing Jews remains highly irrelevant.

Mr anony:
Hahahahaha...what did you think you were doing when you were accusing Christian missionaries of colonialism for preaching the gospel?

There are still missionaries in Japan.


The point is that I was accusing certain missionaries in the past of practicing an imperialist christianity. I did not accuse all christianity or all missionaries of praciticing imperialist christianity.


You and your strawmen.

Logicboy03:
Please, reread my comment and try to find out where I said that the law on tyres is covered by civil law. See how you lie and strawman?

Ah so you have conceded that breaking the law on tires is actually covered under criminal law and therefore is a crime.

The point with the tyres is very simple; breaking the law doesnt mean that one is a criminal

If it is covered under criminal law, then breaking it is a crime sir. Please be consistent

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

Yes this applies to civil laws which are against private individuals and not criminal laws which are against the state. Please go and read a book.

The law about the tyres takes a prohibitive approach. You won't be tried for being a little over the limit, just as you wouldnt be tried for dropping a sweet wrapper on the floor (which is also illegal). Does dropping a sweet wrapper on the floor make one a criminal?

Yes it is a crime though classed as a misdemeanor (minor crime), the state will punish you for it. . . .the only reason you may not be tried for it is because it is so minor that it is easier to punish you outrightly than to try you for it. Not all Governments give trials for all crimes some are punished straightaway.

Furthermore, you an break the law and be tried in a civil case. I hope you knew that.

Yeah if you breach a civil law like breaking a contract in which case you haven't offended the state but a fellow citizen.

Thanks for the unnecessary lecture on the diff between civil and criminal law., Mr Strawman

I would have taken this seriously if you at least knew the meaning of "strawman". You just keep throwing words about that you are ignorant of. Please go and actually read a book. Reading the first few lines of a wikipedia article does not make you smart in any way.

Of course

smh

No one said the UN owns any country.
Noone said that countries cant disregard the UN.

This is what you said:

As long as a country belongs to the UN, it will always be queried for human rights abuses.

So in your vocabulary, countries belonging to the UN does not mean that the UN owns them? do you even understand the English language?

Your comment is irrelevant to the point again. Strawman Anony.

You really need to educate yourself urgently.

The point remains that human rights should be considered before any law is passed. This is a simple practical and fair approach. The EU court of justice has set precedence for this as the UK govt has lost cases due to the ECJ overruling their decisions based on human rights principles

My point remains that the so called human rights are not really binding on anyone and the UK government can choose to leave the EU if it likes. The UK government only willingly agreed to the ruling. It could as well have defied the EU and nothing would have happened. Such bodies as the EU, UN, OAU really have no teeth.

How does this then relate to illegal immigration and smuggling?

This is just you being silly. You asked me about blasphemy, I answered about blasphemy then suddenly you are asking me how my answer relates to illegal immigration and smuggling. Are you suffering from amnesia?

Are you then saying that these are not legitimate crimes because a ridiculous government criminalised blasphemy? Do you see how silly your point is?

"I think it is ridiculous therefore it is ridiculous" is not a good argument. No sir you don't get to define what is ridiculous for sovereign countries.

One is a clear crime that not one government or sane person disagrees with. The other is a law that no progressive country recognizes

You also don't get to define what is sane or progressive for sovereign nations. Your opinions are by no means fact.

Are you being silly?

Is this the time for silly questions?

Why should Anony not molest his cousin?

Yeah why? The question is not silly. You are assuming that human rights are universal without justifying it. So please answer my question.

My comment had nothing to do with Jpanese christians. And no, your point has never been made. Sorry.

First, you omit the clear part where your own source confirmed that these missionaries were deported and they smuggled themselves back in. That is clearly criminal.

Secondly, you omit the clear colonization issue that even your source confirms.


Thirdly, you will not get me to talk about the Japanese christians, no matter how hard you try. I know that you are obfuscating. You need to change goalposts. I never mentioned or defended the actions of the Japanese christians.


Focus on the point. Your missionaries were commiting criminal acts. Clean and clear.



What? Source? Why do you lie?

My point remains in sole regards to the missionaries that committed crimes. They were killed for their crimes which Ifelt needed a lesser punishment in imprisonment




Strawmanning and changing goalposts. Your missionaries had already committed crimes of smuggling, bribery and illegal immigration. Try again. They were also found guilty of conspiracy to colonize and conquer.

Let us look at the article again and see why they were imprisoned and killed shall we?

...After the Shogun decided that Christianity needed to be suppressed, the Christian teachers were ordered to leave the country. They did so, however, a few decided to sneak back in, including the Augustinian Father Pedro de Zuiniga and the Dominican Father Luis Florez. They went on board a ship from Manila captained by a Japanese Christian named Joachim. The vessel, however, was captured and plundered by the Dutch who reported to the Japanese (into whose custody they were given) that there were Catholic priests on board. They were imprisoned in Hirato; however, they (along with a number of other Christians) broke out of prison with the help of another Dominican father from Manila.

All the prisoners were recaptured, and the emperor ordered the governor of Nagasaki to burn alive Captain Joachim with his entire officers and crew, the two priests, and all the other monks in this and other prisons (both foreigners and Japanese), as well as all the wives and children of those who had previously been martyred.

The governor then proceeded to Hirato and examined the prisoners. He questioned them about whether they were Christians, where they were born and when they were baptized. He instructed them to renounce Christianity, and that the Emperor had given him a promise that if they did so, their lives would be spared. They repeatedly refused to renounce the faith. Therefore, the governor ordered the captain and the two priests to be burned alive, and for ten sailors to be beheaded. The three to be burned asked for what reason they were being killed, and when upon being told they were being executed for illegally seeking to spread the Christian faith in Japan, they rejoiced for being able to die for Christ.

They were executed in Nagasaki on August 19, 1622. The sailors were first beheaded, as the three were made ready for burning. Before they were burned, Joachim began preaching to the crowd that had come to watch. He was ordered to stop, but he asked what greater pain they could inflict upon him that than which they were already going to do. The fire was then set and Joachim continued to preach as he was being burned.

The heads of the three were removed and placed upon a board as a public warning. The bodies were left where they were for several days, and large crowds of Japanese Christians arrived, venerating them. The guards beat them.

The part there in bold red shows exactly why they were imprisoned and killed. I wonder where you manufactured your own reason from?

As for the bolded part of your comment....did you notice that you accepted the crimes of missionaries in the same era as the Japanese missionaries which were consistent with imperialism? Do you also notice that you want these same japanese missionaries who were smugglers and illegal immigrants to go scot free while claiming that missionaries that did wrong should be punished?

I accepted that some missionaries committed crimes but that still doesn't allow you to make the generalization you made and therefore justify their murder. Besides it is clear that colonialism is not really the issue here, the real issue is their christian faith. No one kills even his own citizens to protect them from colonization. You have no case.

Furthermore, thanks for admitting the evils of some of your christian missionaries

You are welcome. It still doesn't help you.

You do realise that your missionaries engaged in the slavery of Nigerians for 300 years before the first school was built.

I hope you do realize that there is a world of difference between a slave trader and a missionary. Please go and educate yourself, your ignorance is embarrassing.

With or without missionaries,, we would have had schools in Nigeria. Take a look at Japan.

You don't know this to be true. Japanese were already literate in the 16th century, Nigerians of the same time period were illiterate bush men.

Strawmanning again. Have you ever wondered why so many people have accepted my coinage "Anonyism"? lol

There's nothing to wonder about, idiots tend to like the same things.

Just look at your comment in bold- I did not say that economic greatness comes from not being colonized. The point was simply that not being colonized leaves your better off than being colonized.

interesting, so in what sense are Japan and Ethiopia equally better of then?

Your nonsense about Nazi killing Jews remains highly irrelevant.

Oh it does remain highly relevant for exposing your leaps in logic.

There are still missionaries in Japan.

Good to know.

The point is that I was accusing certain missionaries in the past of practicing an imperialist christianity. I did not accuse all christianity or all missionaries of praciticing imperialist christianity.

If the missionaries you accused include those martyred in Japan, then I'm happy to let you know that your accusation is false plain and simple

You and your strawmen.

You know shouting "strawman" at every turn until your face turns blue doesn't show us that you know the meaning of the word.

I give up.


*Tags Mr Troll to jump in the ring*


Guy, this Anony and his merry go- round.


Lets summarize his points

-Smuggling, illegal immigrants should not go to prison
-Japanese govt that killed the missionaries who would have led the colonization of the Japanese society
-Blasphemy is a justifiable crime on the same level as illegal immigration annd smuggling
-Obama is not a christian
-Secularism finds christianity oppressive.

Is this guy not silly?

Just to keep things in perspective, I studied business law both in undergraduate and post graduate. Anony then strawmans my postion after reading wikipedia on the law and then claims things that I have not said to bolster his delusions that I do not know the difference between criminal and civil law. That is the first thing you learn in business law.

Anony, you're losing it

Logicboy03: I give up.


*Tags Mr Troll to jump in the ring*


Guy, this Anony and his merry go- round.


Lets summarize his points

Yawn

-Smuggling, illegal immigrants should not go to prison

Liar, that was not why they were imprisoned

-Japanese govt that killed the missionaries who would have led the colonization of the Japanese society

Are you justifying killing before a crime is committed?

-Blasphemy is a justifiable crime on the same level as illegal immigration annd smuggling

Every country has the right to make it's own laws and punish defaulters

-Obama is not a christian

Of course he isn't

-Secularism finds christianity oppressive.

I never said that

Is this guy not silly?

Are you referring to yourself?

Just to keep things in perspective, I studied business law both in undergraduate and post graduate. Anony then strawmans my postion after reading wikipedia on the law and then claims things that I have not said to bolster his delusions that I do not know the difference between criminal and civil law. That is the first thing you learn in business law.

Apparently you were not paying attention in your classes.

Mr anony:


Liar, that was not why they were imprisoned

lol....explain this to me. The missionaries were deported and thereby set free to do whatever they liked.

However, when they came back, they were imprisoned and later killed.


Seems to me that their illegal immigration was part of the reason that they were imprisoned and killed.


who is the liar now?

Mr anony:

Are you justifying killing before a crime is committed?

Yawn, they were in the process of committing the crime.

Mr anony:

Every country has the right to make it's own laws and punish defaulters

Strawman- the argument is that blasphemy is not in any way equatable to illegal immigration as a crime.
Remember- there are no absolutes. The right of a country to make its own laws are limited by other rights and treaties.

Mr anony:

Of course he isn't

lol....you say things without reasons or common sense. How do you know that Olaadegby, Striklymi or Ihedinobi are christians?

1) They go to church
2) They claim to be christians
3) They read/have read the bible
4) They believe in Jesus and the bible
5) They believe in Yahweh.

So far, Obama has met all 5 criteria on video. You are a self righteous hypocrite.

Mr anony:

I never said that

Yes, you did

Logicboy; Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Anony; This assumes that Christianity is anti-freedom. It isn't. (I'm assuming that by religion you are referring to Christianity.)

Mr anony:

Apparently you were not paying attention in your classes.

lol....apparently you make claims with no iota of evidence or sense

Mr anony:


This is what you said:

As long as a country belongs to the UN, it will always be queried for human rights abuses.

So in your vocabulary, countries belonging to the UN does not mean that the UN owns them? do you even understand the English language?

See Anony's silliness?





Belong also means to be a part of something- it doesnt always mean or imply that you are owned if you beling to something


Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 193 countries.
http://www.un.org/Overview/uninbrief/about.shtml


I rest my case. Anony, is a silly anonynizer

Logicboy03:
lol....explain this to me. The missionaries were deported and thereby set free to do whatever they liked.

However, when they came back, they were imprisoned and later killed.


Seems to me that their illegal immigration was part of the reason that they were imprisoned and killed.


who is the liar now?

The missionaries were deported because they preached Christianity, they came back to preach Christianity and were captured. They were promised freedom if they would renounce Christianity, they were killed because they refused to renounce Christianity. Please stop lying.

Yawn, they were in the process of committing the crime.

Committing what crime? Preaching Christianity? Remember you said Christianity is not the same as colonialism. Don't try to equate the two now. Please be consistent.

Strawman- the argument is that blasphemy is not in any way equatable to illegal immigration as a crime.
Remember- there are no absolutes. The right of a country to make its own laws are limited by other rights and treaties.

If there are no absolutes as you say (from which we may take reference), how then do you come to the conclusion that illegal immigration is not equatable to blasphemy as a crime?

Besides the issue in both cases is people being imprisoned and killed for their beliefs. "illegal immigration" is a totally unrelated red herring which you brought up and we have sufficiently pursued it now.

If you justify the imprisonment of preists for their christianity, then you have no grounds to oppose the imprisonment of atheists for their blasphemy.

lol....you say things without reasons or common sense. How do you know that Olaadegby, Striklymi or Ihedinobi are christians?

1) They go to church
2) They claim to be christians
3) They read/have read the bible
4) They believe in Jesus and the bible
5) They believe in Yahweh.

So far, Obama has met all 5 criteria on video. You are a self righteous hypocrite.

Obama does not believe in Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. This is evidenced by his support of abortion (including his support for partial birth abortion) and homosexual marriage. No Christian can possibly hold the positions he holds. By their fruits you shall know them.

Yes, you did

Logicboy; Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Anony; This assumes that Christianity is anti-freedom. It isn't. (I'm assuming that by religion you are referring to Christianity.)

No I did not. You are the one making the claim and I am the one telling you that it isn't so. Your comprehension skills are below par.

lol....apparently you make claims with no iota of evidence or sense

Says the guy who claims that Japanese missionaries were imprisoned and killed for smuggling even after he has been clearly shown that it was for their Christian faith.

Mr. Anony u would agree wit me it is difficult babysitting an adult who decides to be childish, so like the African proverb goes when u beat a child with one hand you use the other hand to soothe his nerve so please take it easy on this child, as this child has clearly been repeatedly beaten.

Lb : trololollolo

vedaxcool: Mr. Anony u would agree wit me it is difficult babysitting an adult who decides to be childish, so like the African proverb goes when u beat a child with one hand you use the other hand to soothe his nerve so please take it easy on this child, as this child has clearly been repeatedly beaten.

Lb : trololollolo

Hahahahaha....no mind the guy.

The terrorist arrives

Mr anony:
Hahahahaha....no mind the guy.

Logicboy03: The terrorist arrives

ad hominem as usual

Mr anony:
ad hominem as usual

What? Are you really denying that Vedaxcool is a terrorist? You should see him and his cohorts supporting the persecution of christians in Saudi Arabia.

Keep pallying around with terrorists. Your pal would sell you to the Saudi moral police in a heart beat. Infidel

Logicboy03:


What? Are you really denying that Vedaxcool is a terrorist? You should see him and his cohorts supporting the persecution of christians in Saudi Arabia.

Keep pallying around with terrorists. Your pal would sell you to the Saudi moral police in a heart beat. Infidel

more ad hominem as usual

Mr anony:
more ad hominem as usual

small small u wont want your "freindly" neibourhood atheist to open a thread accusing u of making him depress. Don't say i didn't warn u.

vedaxcool:
small small u wont want your "freindly" neibourhood atheist to open a thread accusing u of making him depress. Don't say i didn't warn u.

^^^
Anony, please translate this nonsense for me

Logicboy03:

^^^
Anony, please translate this nonsense for me

Why should I do that?

vedaxcool:
small small u wont want your "freindly" neibourhood atheist to open a thread accusing u of making him depress. Don't say i didn't warn u.

Lol.

Lovebirds, so sweet.

For every bigoted, angry, or "crazy" atheist, there are at least 100 religious people in the same vein. But they have their religion to hide behind. A pissed off and psychologically unwell Christian is a "warrior for God", atheists aren't awarded the same pardon.