₦airaland Forum

[size=16pt]I'll just use this post to say that I am very disappointed in you; Manmustwac.

You have let a combination of your ignorance of an English word coupled with a puffed up ego resulting from access to a few extra buttons on a website get the better of you.

I hope you do realize (with remorse) how wrong you are. If not, shame on you.[/size]

Alfa Seltzer: You can't debate truth. You can only insult it.

smh

Logicboy03: Wow....what a liar. You use the one definition that suits your agenda. Dubious tool

Sodomy /ˈsɒdəmi/ is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

anal intercourse.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sodomy

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex.
2. enforced anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

I said precisely what I meant, I wonder why you are so desperate to force a meaning I don't hold into my mouth.

Alfa Seltzer: Anony, I believe that Jesus is God. And he hates gays. Just like people in real life, the most extreme vocal anti-gay crusaders are actually closet gay people. Makes you wonder about a man who surrounded himself with other men and telling that the narrow path is the better path.

your comment is so puerile it does not deserve a response

mazaje: Jesus is god as many christians like you believe, god says gays should be killed period. . .The bible clearly condemns gays and speaks badly about them. Christians use the bible as the basis and justification for hating gays, discriminating against them, treating them with contempt and in some cases killing them. . .If gays fight back then they are just figting against a force that dislikes them, calls for them to be killed and discriminated up on period. . .

Good thing that you have agreed that Jesus is God according to Christianity but then what follows from you is simply untrue. You are making a claim that Christians hold a position they do not hold.
God hates sin but loves the sinner. Hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual behavior as well as murder, fornication, covetousness, adultery, blasphemy etc are sins and fully deserve God's wrath. There is no Christian that discriminates against the hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual rather Christians vehemently condemn their acions.
It is not discrimination to condemn a sinful man. I am sure you do not believe it is discrimination when you condemn what you consider to be evil practices. Notice that it is the hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual sin that is condemned and not the person. The door of forgiveness is open to all sinners including the sodomite. What they need to do is repent, turn from their sin and put their trust in Christ Jesus and He will save them. If they do not, then they have in fact condemned themselves.

mazaje: What is this rigmarole all about?. . .Where have I stated that Jesus is god or not?. . .I have always maintained that some christians believe that Jesus is god while others do not. . .That is my position on the matter. . .You believe that Jesus is god so I am using your position to make my point. The bottom line is that the bible condemns gays, talks about them in a contemptible way, calls for their death and many people use such passages to condemn gays, treat them badly and kill them in some cases. . .As such gays are now fighting back. . .Simple that is the case on ground. . .

Nonsense, there is no rigmarole here. you are the one who claims that Jesus said something he didn't say and when you were asked to show were Jesus said what you claimed he said, you started shifting goalposts to Jesus being God. I then asked you whether you believe that the bible teaches that Jesus is God. You started dancing around some more and trying to shift your burden to me.

It is irrelevant what I believe or what you think Christians believe at this point. We did not make the claim that the that Jesus hates hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals, you did. You are the one who made the claim about Jesus so please bear your burden of proof. Here is the question that you keep trying to evade:

Do you agree that the bible teaches that Jesus is God or not?

After you have answered yes or no and we have clarified whether or not you really mean God when you refer to Jesus then we can go on to talk about the Christian stance on hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals.

Please stop dancing around.

mazaje: Do I care if Jesus is god or not?. . .How is that my business. . .You believe that Jesus is god and I am using your position to let you know that Jesus as god called for the killing of gays. . .Many christians use such verses as justification for the killing of gays, just as Jesus(God) says that thou shall not suffer a whitch to live, many people believe witches deserve to be killed as well. . .

No my friend you cannot eat your cake and have it. You can't say you don't believe that the bible teaches Jesus is God and yet you want to equate Jesus to God just to force a point and then tomorrow you switch back to "Jesus is not God" just to force another point somewhere else. If you cannot stay consistent, you immediately lose your credibility. If you don't care whether Jesus is God or not, then you have no grounds to make claims on what the message of Jesus is when you really mean God.

So I ask you once again, do you believe that the bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God?

mazaje: Isn't Jesus god?. . .God which is the same as Jesus made the comments. . .



I have shown you already, according to Jesus(God) gays are to be killed. . .The other verse is also inspired by Jesus as well since you believe the bible is the word of Jesus(God). . . .So what exactly are you on about?

Very good, let me be clear though, are you now conceding that Jesus Christ is indeed God according to scripture or are you only dubiously adopting the position just to help you out in this case? As soon as we clarify this, then we can move on.

Yooguyz: what do you mean by the term sodomy?

A[color=#000000]na[/color]l or oral c[color=#000000]opu[/color]lation with a member of the same sex.

(Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010)

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.

Logicboy03: ^^^
Anony, please translate this nonsense for me

Why should I do that?

mazaje: [b][/b]Didn't watch the video just making a general commentary. . .

ok

Its very true. . .Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.

Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

...and Jesus made these comments?

By the way, I am not granting that the verses you spurned are verses of discrimination and hate but first I want you to defend the statement below. According to you:

...After all the message of Jesus towards those that are gay is that of hate, descrimination and contempt

Please can you show which of Jesus' actions or comments led you to the above conclusion....or were you just telling lies?

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

Logicboy03: The terrorist arrives

ad hominem as usual

mazaje: Every body has the right to rebell against hateful, violent and discriminatory messages. ..The bible calls on gays to be killed. People use the bible to justify their hate for gays etc. .Gays have every right to fight back. The hearts pricks them for justice, thats all, its not as if they feel that any thing is wrong with their sexuality. . .If you don't want people to fight you then stop treating them with contempt, as long as christians keep using the bible as a basis for justifying their hate towards gays then they should expect more fightback from the gays period. . .

Erhm....did you watch the video? Please if you did, be so kind to tell us exactly what hateful messages were exhibited therein.

This is where you get it wrongly. . .The alleged messages of Jesus or Yahweh is racist, violent, judgemental and condems people that are gays and they are fighting back simple. . .The bible calls and gays to be killed, it calls them evil etc. . .Gays believe they should not be killed and they also believe they are not evil. . .People that subscribe to the messages of the bible that are in government try to us the hateful messages in the bible to make legislation against gays, they don't want gays to get married or even to be accomodated and recognized in the society. . .If christians had their way gays will be killed or inprisoned. . .Democary is the only thing that has completely destroyed the power of the church in the west. . .Every body has the right to air his views, you can not go about posting hateful messages and condeming a group of people and not expect them to fight back. . .After all the message of Jesus towards those that are gay is that of hate, descrimination and contempt, so fighting back against such hateful message is the right thing to do as far as they are concerned. .

This is simply untrue. Would you mind citing the verse of scripture from which you got the bold?

Ihedinobi: Just what is it that pisses people off about the Lord Christ? If they really believed that they have nothing to fear from Him, would they care about people with placards? Care so much as to physically attack them? Funny thing is eliminating the messenger never destroys the power of the One Who sent them in this case. It hardly ever does in fact.

When the heart of a man pricks him, there are two ways to respond, continue in rebellion or subject yourself to Christ. They evidently chose the former.

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.

wiegraf: I'll just leave this here, for general reference. It touches some of the basics the scientific stance on evolution, something some supposedly erudite fellows are familiar with



In before 'it does not address the op', it does. And that's not the only purpose.

Kudos...for now..

Which of the points in the op does it specifically address and how exactly does it address them?

Logicboy03: Sorry, my last comment didnt make any sense! Didnt sleep all nite......going to sleep now

Apology accepted. Good to know there's still remnant traits of a gentleman left in you. You can go to bed now

davidylan: i wonder why thehomer and logicboy artfully steered clear of the thread where deepsight lays out strong arguments against evolution only to park here bleating.

We both know that they really have nothing to add there.

Logicboy03: You people should stop hailing Deepsight just because he rants nonsense about evolution and the big bang.


The very title of the thread is silly. No scientist will tell you that evolution explains how the first life arrived. No. Evolution starts from the first life already existing.

As for the big bang, it is the best theory available for the origin of our universe. No scientist will tell you that the big bang explains everything about the origin of our universe. The big bang theory still remains to be improved as we find out more and more about the universe. The core theory of the big bang remains valid but more information could be added. For instance, I read that the estimated age of the universe was some millions of years off.



So, it is hard to see what Deepsight is arguing about. The descent of deepsight is beginning. I hope he doesnt go down like Anony who has become a self parody. No one takes him seriously anymore due to his incessant Anonyism

Yawn...and in all this, Deep Sight remains unanswered

By the way, did you even read the op?

Logicboy03: The mod was even being lenient with you for breaking rule 3
3. Don't advocate or encourage violent actions against any person, tribe, race, or group of people.


But apparently, Anony has reminded us that it is christian priviledge to abuse and use derogatory/offensive words against gays.

Lololololol...so calling an open practitioner of sodomy a sodomite is now equal to "encouraging violence against a group of people"?

You are such a cute little liar aren't you? Now entertain us some more: How low can you go?

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.

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.

Alfa Seltzer: I am (unusually) quite neutral on this issue. I would under normal circumstances support free expressions and non-censorship as long as it is applied to everybody.

If christians don't like their world views being censored, they should not complain when others express their own views about christianity.

I have no problems with people complaining about what they don't like, what I have problems with is someone changing my topic for me because he has moderator privileges and then having the gall to warn me not to change the title of my thread back to what I want it to be. That's got to be the height of privilege abuse.

Logicboy03: Ode, you think he is supporting you?

Your mind reading abilities are top notch.

Logicboy03: Keep on anonynizing while it lasts....your butthurt is coming soon

Yawn

Been following this thread and laughing all the way. Would someone just be so kind and tackle one of Deep Sight's poses. Mockery is really not a legitimate form of argument.

Logicboy03: Case closed. Anony is a tool. (apparently lesbians are sodomites)

Typical logicboy, closing the case in style. When you learn to argue without insults, give me a shout.

Alfa Seltzer: What would you call a straight couple that engage in sodomy?

Abeg help me ask am?

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, i[color=#000000]dio[/color]ts 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.

Logicboy03: Shifting goalposts are we?

-First, it is not offensive
-After finding out that it is offensive, the anonyism is to ask why it is offensive to go around in a long argument.



Simple fact- not all gay people engage in sodomy. Even straight couples engage in sodomy.
Simple fact- gay people naturally do not like the old testament (Sodomite originated from the OT)
simple fact- christians have used the word so negatively towards gays.


Anony asks why it is offensive. What a douche

You are wasting your time. A sodomite is a sodomite, there is nothing offensive about the word. If hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals claim that there is nothing wrong with what they do, then they should be proud to be called sodomites. It is is funny how you are so persistent in taking offense on behalf of them.

It is also pretty s[color=#000000]tup[/color]id to claim that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy when sodomy is precisely the nature of hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual co[color=#000000]pul[/color]ation.

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