Teacher Murdered after Student DREAMS She Committed Blasphemy

[Sculptor]

Will the real God, please stand up.

He has.

Happy Easter.

DEATH CULT.
DRINK HIS BLOOD< EAT HIS FLESH.....

[Sculptor]

Happy Easter.

easter.JPG (22.6 KiB) Viewed 755 times

[Immanuel Can]

Will the real God, please stand up.

He has.

Happy Easter.

DEATH CULT.

How old are you?

Do you actually think I find this kind of gesture frightening? It strikes me as more pre-pubescent.

[RCSaunders]

If you claimed Napoleon was still alive, I'd expect to see a picture. Same goes for anyone else who is supposed to be alive.

So that's interesting.

You think "proof of God" would be a photograph?

Whoever said that? Your claim is that Jesus Christ is a man who is still alive. I know you could fake a picture, but so long as you admit there cannot be one, there is no reason to consider his existence any more than any of the other dead men in history.

Your claim that he is god is a different claim and your dragging that in is an equivocation. Won't work.

A risen Christ is no more real than the Easter Bunny. Have a nice Easter.

And here's a picture to prove it:

[Immanuel Can]

If you claimed Napoleon was still alive, I'd expect to see a picture. Same goes for anyone else who is supposed to be alive.

So that's interesting.

You think "proof of God" would be a photograph?

Whoever said that? Your claim is that Jesus Christ is a man who is still alive.

Indeed so. But you did ask for a "picture." I assumed that's what you meant. Was I wrong?

I know you could fake a picture, but so long as you admit there cannot be one, there is no reason to consider his existence any more than any of the other dead men in history.

So, then, what do you want instead? What would constitute "proof of Christ" for you?

[Age]

"...what "truths" do you see within THAT particular religion..."

There is only One God.

There's two problems with that: unless you are a Theist yourself, you don't believe that's true -- so to you, it cannot be "good."

What are you on about here now?

One can KNOW some 'thing' is True without necessarily having to BELIEVE it. Were you NOT YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

So, NO 'problem' AT ALL here.

The second is that the "god" the Koran describes is very different from the God described in Torah and the New Testament, having very different characteristics and values.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of EXACTLY WHY BELIEFS, themselves, are NOT necessary and INDEED a SETBACK.

So even if you concede that there IS one God, it's not the same God as the others.

So what's "good" about that?

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, laughably, WHICH God is the GOOD and Right one?

'you', BELIEVERS, in your OWN CHOSEN 'religions', speak PURE NONSENSE.

'you' asked 'me', 'What truths I see in that particular religion?'

I just TOLD 'you'.

Now, if you BELIEVE that when it is said within A religion, 'There is One God', is NOT true, then so be it. But, this would CONTRADICT your OWN BELIEF here.

[Age]

"...what "truths" do you see within THAT particular religion..."

There is only One God.

Will the real God, please stand up.

It IS.

'you', adult human beings, however, just can NOT SEE It, well NOT YET anyway.

This is because of your OWN, individual, BELIEFS.

That is; if one BELIEVES there is NO God, or BELIEVES that there OWN CHOSEN God is the right or true one, then what ACTUALLY REALLY EXISTS, which is what the God word is referring to, EXACTLY, is NOT ABLE to be SEEN, nor UNDERSTOOD.

In other words it is your OWN individual BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS that is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' from RECOGNIZING and REALIZING who and what the REAL God ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

[Immanuel Can]

One can KNOW some 'thing' is True without necessarily having to BELIEVE it.

You're talking nonsense again, "Age."

WHICH God is the GOOD and Right one?

That's a good question. But the fact that you don't know which one it is, doesn't mean there isn't one. So that's a secondary question: "IS there a God?" comes before "What kind?"

'you' asked 'me', 'What truths I see in that particular religion?'

I just TOLD 'you'.

You didn't actually answer. But I guess, based on previous exchanges with you, I had no reason to be optimistic you would.

Bye again.

[Age]

One can KNOW some 'thing' is True without necessarily having to BELIEVE it.

You're talking nonsense again, "Age."

You are OBVIOUSLY NOT YET ABLE to SEE, and understand, PAST your OWN BELIEFS and what you currently BELIEVE is true.

Also, just ACCUSING "another" of "talking nonsense" WITHOUT ANY examples NOR explanation is; SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

WHICH God is the GOOD and Right one?

That's a good question. But the fact that you don't know which one it is, doesn't mean there isn't one.

LOL There is ONLY One.

Can you REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

So that's a secondary question: "IS there a God?" comes before "What kind?"

OF COURSE there is A Thing, which the word God is REFERRING TO.

Are you NOT YET AWARE of this Fact ALSO?

'you' asked 'me', 'What truths I see in that particular religion?'

I just TOLD 'you'.

You didn't actually answer.

YES I DID, when I SAID and WROTE, CLEARLY; 'There is only One God'.

Did you REALLY FORGET this?

Do you NOT REMEMBER that you ACTUALLY RESPONDED to the ACTUAL ANSWER I provided here?

But I guess, based on previous exchanges with you, I had no reason to be optimistic you would.

Bye again.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, you have SHOWN ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DEFLECTION. So, you can RUN AWAY, AGAIN, like you have EVERY OTHER PREVIOUS TIME WITH Me. But just so you are AWARE, it does NOT look good on YOUR part.

[RCSaunders]

So that's interesting.

You think "proof of God" would be a photograph?

Whoever said that? Your claim is that Jesus Christ is a man who is still alive.

Indeed so. But you did ask for a "picture." I assumed that's what you meant. Was I wrong?

I know you could fake a picture, but so long as you admit there cannot be one, there is no reason to consider his existence any more than any of the other dead men in history.

So, then, what do you want instead? What would constitute "proof of Christ" for you?

There cannot be, "proof," of that which is not true. Seldom, if ever, is, "proof," required to learn what is true, because what is true is so obvious it's not possible to doubt. No one asks for proof concerning anyone they see for themselves is alive. If the existense of someone needs to be, "proved," they don't exist. Just don't waste your time trying to argue me into believing what I can plainly see is not true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are the so-called "good" elements therein example,

• 7:157: Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.

All this says is that Mohammed is supposed always to be right...though in historical fact, clearly, he was often wrong, and not least of all about what he thought he remembered the Torah as saying. (For example, he couldn't even get the name of Abraham's heir right: the Koran says it was "Ishmael." It was Isaac.)

So what part of this do you regard as a "good" element in it?

Where did the above imply "Mohammed is supposed always to be right"?
Can't you see in the verse itself?
The verse stated, btw, it is not the Prophet [who is merely the messenger] but rather their God who is stipulating what believer should act what is good and avoid what is evil.

• "He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. "

If you have read the book thoroughly you will note there are many 'good' acts that is stipulated by their God via the messenger.
Note for example 'fasting' [going on this month] is proven to be good for health provided they do it properly.
As P noted above, in prison, the Muslims prisoners were very obsessive about cleanliness which is stipulated by their God and not being natural about cleanliness.
There are many other 'little' good acts that their God has stipulated for their believers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

you're not listening or you just want to argue

its simple in the OP the girl dreamt the offence, the teacher didn't actually do the offence. therefore the dreamer is a liar. trying to justify her act of murder that is murder even within her own religion. doesn't matter the culture or the religion the girl is a liar and a murder.

you have to actually offend to receive justifiable punishment anywhere in the world.

I wanted to discuss the facts.

Note these points;

Blasphemy is a highly inflammatory subject in Pakistan, and those accused are often lynched by vigilante mobs.
The victim's uncle Zahid Qureshi told Radio Free Europe that there was "no enmity" between Bibi and her killers.
https://www.insider.com/pakistan-teache ... eam-2022-4

My point is, regardless of whether the dream was real or not, or if the girl had lied, it is the state [evil potential] of the religion such that the religion itself facilitates evil to be committed even by its goody-two-shoe believers.

Note it is stated "there was "no enmity" between Bibi and her killers" but nevertheless they were driven to kill the teacher solely by being brainwashed by their religion to defend the religion against threats [blasphemy, etc.].

The test is, without such a evil laden religion, there would be no killing in this particular case.
In contrast, if a Christian girl had dreamt X blasphemy against Christ to her friends, in general they would not be driven to kill X.

But it had been very normal and often for one accused [rightly or wrongly] of blasphemy against Islam to be killed by a mob, a group or individual.

A mob has killed a man for allegedly burning pages of the Koran in central Pakistan, police say, in the latest case of blasphemy-related violence in the country.

The killing comes just over two months after a Sri Lankan factory manager was beaten to death and set ablaze by a mob over blasphemy in Sialkot city, also in Punjab province.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60368498

[Immanuel Can]

Whoever said that? Your claim is that Jesus Christ is a man who is still alive.

Indeed so. But you did ask for a "picture." I assumed that's what you meant. Was I wrong?

I know you could fake a picture, but so long as you admit there cannot be one, there is no reason to consider his existence any more than any of the other dead men in history.

So, then, what do you want instead? What would constitute "proof of Christ" for you?

There cannot be, "proof," of that which is not true.

So you will accept no proof that Christ is alive. No wonder, then, that you believe it. Under no method at all can your claim be falsified. Nothing is either proof or disproof for it.

[Immanuel Can]

There are the so-called "good" elements therein example,

• 7:157: Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.

All this says is that Mohammed is supposed always to be right...though in historical fact, clearly, he was often wrong, and not least of all about what he thought he remembered the Torah as saying. (For example, he couldn't even get the name of Abraham's heir right: the Koran says it was "Ishmael." It was Isaac.)

So what part of this do you regard as a "good" element in it?

Where did the above imply "Mohammed is supposed always to be right"?

I point you to the second and third sentences.

The verse stated, btw, it is not the Prophet [who is merely the messenger] but rather their God

No problem. So that would just mean that their "god" is mistaken or a liar, too. It wouldn't make their prophet not-a-false-prophet. After all, what a "prophet" is supposed to do is to convey the words of their god.

If you have read the book thoroughly you will note there are many 'good' acts

Point some out, since they are "many."

Note for example 'fasting' [going on this month] is proven to be good for health provided they do it properly. As P noted above, in prison, the Muslims prisoners were very obsessive about cleanliness which is stipulated by their God and not being natural about cleanliness.

Fasting is not at all exclusively a Muslim practice, but rather is in many religions and also in a whole lot of other places; so one could be a non-Muslim and get any benefit from that. So that's no reason to keep the Koran around. "Cleanliness" likewise, of course; and there are many more hygenic practices than Islam requires.

You need to do better than that. Give me something good that makes it worth us keeping the Koran around. If everything it says is either bad or merely redundant with other religions, there's no reason at all to keep it. After all, Islam has killed as more people than any other "religion" in history, except for Socialism, which has vastly outstripped it, of course.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All this says is that Mohammed is supposed always to be right...though in historical fact, clearly, he was often wrong, and not least of all about what he thought he remembered the Torah as saying. (For example, he couldn't even get the name of Abraham's heir right: the Koran says it was "Ishmael." It was Isaac.)

So what part of this do you regard as a "good" element in it?

Where did the above imply "Mohammed is supposed always to be right"?

I point you to the second and third sentences.

The verse stated, btw, it is not the Prophet [who is merely the messenger] but rather their God

No problem. So that would just mean that their "god" is mistaken or a liar, too. It wouldn't make their prophet not-a-false-prophet. After all, what a "prophet" is supposed to do is to convey the words of their god.

If you have read the book thoroughly you will note there are many 'good' acts

Point some out, since they are "many."

Note for example 'fasting' [going on this month] is proven to be good for health provided they do it properly. As P noted above, in prison, the Muslims prisoners were very obsessive about cleanliness which is stipulated by their God and not being natural about cleanliness.

Fasting is not at all exclusively a Muslim practice, but rather is in many religions and also in a whole lot of other places; so one could be a non-Muslim and get any benefit from that. So that's no reason to keep the Koran around. "Cleanliness" likewise, of course; and there are many more hygenic practices than Islam requires.

You need to do better than that. Give me something good that makes it worth us keeping the Koran around. If everything it says is either bad or merely redundant with other religions, there's no reason at all to keep it. After all, Islam has killed as more people than any other "religion" in history, except for Socialism, which has vastly outstripped it, of course.

You still don't get it.

Fasting, cleanliness, prayers, etc. are not exclusively Islam, so what. It still remain a fact that Islam does promote some elements that are good and healthy.

I have not claimed the holy text [Q] is overriding good like that of the Gospel, nor the supposedly good elements are exceptionally good.
Nevertheless there are may 'good' elements in the holy text but their degree of goodness is on the lower side.
{Btw, the Gospels also has their negative elements albeit not significant nor critical at our present phase of evolution.}

I don't think you have read their holy texts 6236 verses in thorough detail. Even if you have done a bit more reading it would appear you are bias thus totally blinded to see any good [of whatever degrees] in it.

Where did I every imply we should keep the holy text around.
And since I stated we should get rid of the religion [ASAP] that would imply we should also get rid of that holy text or curtailed its exposure to vulnerable believers.