Loudmouth, please point out where I have ever said I was ok with the sexual assaults in Cologne, whoever perpetrated them?

I am just as upset with these rapists, regardless of their religion, as I am about the child sex abusers from other religious perpetrators. They all read their religious books, but not all of them assault, kill or vilify others because of them.

Mostly though, I just see them as criminals, despite their religions, because we can't paint everyone in any religious or racial group with the same brush...because that is wrong.

ttbn, good comeback....your mate Runner would be proud of you.

That’s right, Cobber. Secularism has dragged Christianity and Judaism kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, whereas Islam hasn’t had that yet.

The claim that the arrival of the printing press allowed commoners to see that their religion was started by a man who was all about peace, love and mung beans is discredited by the fact that Judaism has a holy book as bad as the Quran and also lacks any Socialist characters (Socialism and Arabs are alright when they’re in the Bible) who, by the way, fully endorsed the Old Testament. I’ve explained numerous times now why, “But that’s the Old Testament”, isn’t a defence.

Slaveholders in America had access to Bibles and the literacy to read them, yet the words of Jesus obviously didn’t make much of a difference to their interpretation of the Bible’s clear endorsement of slavery.

ttbn,

Apparently you have no defence for your idiotic claim so instead you offer up a weak ad hominem. Nice work. Are you able to argue in anything other than fallacies?

It’s just brainless comment after brainless comment with you, isn’t it? That tends to be the way with our one-paragraph posters, I’ve noticed.

Hi Suse,

Sorry, perhaps I interpreted your comments wrongly, as implying that criticism of Muslim thugs was criticism of islam as a whole. I apologise.

Yes, you are right, criminals can be of any faith - or no faith, such as myself. I mean that I am of no faith, not that I am a criminal of no faith. I'm sure that there are atheist sexual abusers of children, like that slime McCoole here in Adelaide, I don't think he has cited his religiosity as some sort of excuse. So it's possible.

But no matter what their faith or lack of, criminals should be condemned for their offences. And when a very large group of men, of mostly one particular religious background, converge on and assault women, that may well be relevant - ALWAYS supposing that not everybody of that religion is somehow accused, no matter where they were that night. We should call it like it is, and no more. I'm sure that you would agree, Suse :)

Joe

AJ Philips,

Sadly, it's no fallacy that you are a useful idiot and extreme relativist. You are the male counterpart of that other arch know-all-no-nothing, Foxy. You spit the dummy every time your 'great wisdom' questioned. You set yourself up, sport; particularly on the matter of Christianity, about which you are totally ignorant.

By the way. A sentence is not a paragraph. The above is a paragraph.

More personal attacks, ttbn? Well, I MUST have been wrong all along then!

<<Sadly, it's no fallacy that you are a useful idiot and extreme relativist.>>

It appears that, to you, one must pretend the harm caused by the predominant religion in one’s culture does not exist, else they be deemed a "useful idiot". If that’s the case, then I would rather be a useful idiot than a useless fool who chooses to float through life with their head in the sand.

And an “extreme relativist”? What’s the difference between that and a ‘moderate relativist’? More importantly, on what occasion did I approach an issue from a relativist perspective when moral absolutism would have been more appropriate?

You don’t know, do you? It just sounded like a good insult at the time.

<<You are the male counterpart of that other arch know-all-no-nothing, Foxy.>>

More ad hominems from a vacuous individual with nothing to offer in defence of his asinine, baseless and fact-free opinions but personal attacks.

That aside, I'm flattered by the comparison.

<<You spit the dummy every time your 'great wisdom' questioned.>>

He claims, while ironically spitting the dummy himself after having had his ignorance held up to the light for everyone to see.

<<You set yourself up, sport; particularly on the matter of Christianity, about which you are totally ignorant.>>

As I’ve mentioned numerous times before, I was a Christian for half my life and studied the Bible for years. I know a damn sight more about Christianity than you do, and it shows. Only one of us here has had to resort to ad hominems.

<<A sentence is not a paragraph.>>

No kidding. I wasn’t talking about that last post specifically, but your usual contributions to discussions. That should have been fairly obvious given the sentence that immediately preceded the comment of mine that you're referring to.

However, I clicked randomly though your comments list and unfortunately it appears that I was giving you too much credit. You do indeed appear to seldom provide a comment that consists of any more than a single sentence.

AJ.

Let's start with I "..seldom provide a comment that consists of any more than a single sentence". Well, I have always believed that people who use more words than necessary have little to say. You clearly haven't heard of KISS. I said what I wanted to say - that you have identified yourself as a 'useful idiot'. Unlike you, I don't sermonise and kid myself that what I do say is anything but my opinion.

As for your being personally attacked, I can only say that a public forum is not for you, particularly if you make stupid comments, especially yours, which your regard as unassailably correct because you say so.

Your constant bagging of your own culture every time the evils of Islam are discussed is disgraceful, and doesn't excuse Islam at all.

I have had another look at your ridiculous slanders against Christianity - and ridiculous they are! Your rubbish claims refer to weirdo sects and perhaps 'happy clappers'. Your first 2 lies do not pertain to mainstream Christianity. No 3. Homosexuals are not 'vilified' (there are homosexuals in the clergy, and none are tossed off high buildings as with your Muslims friends. No4 must be about the freaks. Number 5 is pathetically naïve. Number 6 is absurd (there are women priests; women do have autonomy over their own bodies, they are not sexually mutilated as the women of your Muslim mates are). Number 7: I and many other Christians support euthanasia. No 8 - I've never heard of such rubbish. No 9 is also absurd and naïve. You haven't got past the Middle Ages in your religious 'studies'; and you clearly no nothing about Nonconformist denominations. 10: you seem to have confused God with Father Christmas. People like you are ignorant idiots, and of no use to us.