The Aasia Bibi affair raised little interest when it happened; it's well past its due-by date now. Australians would do better to concentrate on their own country and the rubbish that is occurring here if they don't want us to descend to Pakistani values. Pakistanis are the only people who have the ability - and the right - to influence what goes on in their country - not some old Australian with time on his hands. We don't like foreigners telling us what to do; foreigners don't like us pontificating on their affairs, either. Accusing anyone of 'blasphemy’ in Australia would be treated as a joke; in Pakistan, the same thing carries stiff penalties. Our culture and theirs are poles apart, Mr. Nance, and what they do in their own dunghill is their business, not yours. Their laws are based on Islam, ours on Christianity. It matters not one iota that Bibi is a Christian - she is first a Pakistani, and is obliged to abide by Pakistani law.

“Some people believe that positive morality and ethical conduct flow entirely from religion”. The people who believe that are correct - in the case of Christianity, but not in the case of Islam. Nance's ignorance comes from his belief that religion is all the same, and it is quite clear that he is correct when he says that he is not influenced by it.

It is also quite clear that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

In Australia their is a good chance that some godless secularist would of murdered Aasia Bibi in the womb.

Mr. ttbn. You say"In Australia their is a good chance that some godless secularist would of murdered Aasia Bibi in the womb."
1. Please learn enough English to know the difference between "their " and "there".

2.What would you do to rape victims who abort? Burn them at the stake as your forbears would have done 6oo years ago when Christianity was as old as Islam is now?
3. Mohammed "married" his "wife" Aisha when she was 6 and "consummated"the marriage when she was 9. He conquered a Jewish tribe, beheaded every adult male and sold women and children into slavery. If he were alive today he would be in gaol as a paedophile and war criminal. Yet his teachings set the moral parameters of Muslims. Are they fit to have a vote in a liberal democracy ? Are you?

Old Man,

I think you should have been addressing my friend runner, not me. Aren't you a fine type to correcting anyone! You are a (silly) Old Man.

'. Mohammed "married" his "wife" Aisha when she was 6 and "consummated"the marriage when she was 9. He conquered a Jewish tribe, beheaded every adult male and sold women and children into slavery. If he were alive today he would be in gaol as a paedophile and war criminal. Yet his teachings set the moral parameters of Muslims. Are they fit to have a vote in a liberal democracy ? Are you?'

Hey old man. Nearly all the Christians I know are smart enough to acknowledge this. Why is it that secular humanist allow and encourage those holding such abhorrent practices into the country. Maybe because secular dogma is not much better.

There's only one thing an off us has absolute control over an that's the thoughts we care to entertain in our heads. And through them our every attitude, action and reaction.

I believe in the sanctity of God-given life and that a woman is never ever under any compulsion whatsoever, to become the unwilling incubator of a child forced on her without informed consent. Be it through incest or rape, including date rape and rape in marriage.

Moreover, if in terminating/excising a group of developing/dividing cells, via a medical termination? No beating heart was stilled!? No human life has been taken any more so than if one had a tumour or wart removed!

As for consummating a marriage with a nine-year-old bride?

Who among you saw that as an eyewitness?

And let's not forget the Christian history of sword-wielding Popes and Bishops at the head of blood lusting armies, putting the unbelievers to the sword. Or the burning of sears at the stake, who were burned only because they were female and spoke divine truth! Like Saint Joan of Arc.

Nor should we forget or forgive the centuries of paedophilia that has been the hallmark of Christianity, for literal centuries, along with other Godless atrocities. Daily word limits prevent me from naming and enumerating them all.
Alan B.

Well, having a career in make believe sure does exclude real world experience.

Alan B. you say:-As for consummating a marriage with a nine-year-old bride?

Who among you saw that as an eyewitness?
No- one alive, of course. I am old but not that old, but:-

According to the ahadith ( Arabic texts of Mohammed's life- singular hadith) Islamic historian Bukhari states "Prophet of Islam married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed (i.e. consummated) that marriage when she was nine years old'.
The Muslim historian Tabari, however, quotes Aisha as saying;- "The Messenger of God married me when I was seven and the marriage was consummated when I was nine"

You do not believe Aisha was nine when the "marriage" was consummated but you believe in the Immaculate Conception. Did you demand an eye witness for that?

Mohammed sent most of his time murdering and robbing other tribes and little on religion.

Alan B has surpassed himself wanting eye witnesses to Mohammed's deflowering of a nine year old child! You come up with eyewitnesses to “sword-wielding Popes and Bishops at the head of blood lusting armies, putting the unbelievers to the sword”, and “centuries of paedophilia that has been the hallmark of Christianity”, and I'll find you eyewitnesses for Mohammed's dirty deed, Alan :)

Old Man seems to have got the right person to have a go at this time. No apologies or recognition of his previous blunder, though. He squeezed his eyes tight and covered his ears and it all went away.

Mr. ttbn
I acknowledge my blunder. I am silly as I have reached the age of brain shrinkage. My comments were aimed at "runner".

I see "faith" as a stone about the neck of civilisation.
People who demand "faith" (non- evidence based belief) and their followers have been responsible for multi millions of premature deaths and huge suffering. That starts with Abram and runs through Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao,Jones, David Koresh, Pol Pot to a dear lovely Australian citizen who cut of a man's head and had his son hold it up to be photographed.

It is time we recognised "faith " for what it is.

'Mohammed sent most of his time murdering and robbing other tribes and little on religion.'

don't forget the black african slaves he had. Then again that fact does not sit well with the Christophobes or Jew haters.

I've said this before, and will likely say it again. Religions are not the same as eachother. The faults of one religion should be recognized as faults of that religion instead of universally applied to other religions as if all religions are the same. The same can be said of the successes and the strengths of any belief system should be counted as their own instead of counted as a universal success for all religions.

Faith is not belief without evidence. Sometimes that's how it is but that should just be the beginning of it, if that is where a person's journey starts from. Other times faith is built on a continuation of trust. Some people's faith has been sparked by God actively getting in their life in a way that can't be ignored. Making some people's journey in faith spark from the hard reality of God being real and showing them that He is. (Others have a simular experience later on in their journey of faith. Which can strengthen their faith or correct them in their life. There is however too much evidance in the world that God exists for faith to be something without evidance.

Dear "runner",
You say Mohammed had black slaves.
Read Luke13:47( top of page858 of Revised Standard Version of the Bible) where "the Lord"i.e. Jesus is reported to have said :- "And that servant who knew the master's will, but did not make ready to act according to his will , shall receive a severe beating".

If you can beat a servant surely he is a slave and anyway the Greek word from which the English version "servant" is translated is usually translated as "slave".

?Slavery is not contrary to the teachings of Jesus. It is contrary to humanity's inherent reason. Wilberforce may haver thought he was guided by Christianity. I fact he was driven in his inherent humanity.

Old man

'?Slavery is not contrary to the teachings of Jesus. It is contrary to humanity's inherent reason. Wilberforce may haver thought he was guided by Christianity. I fact he was driven in his inherent humanity.'

No doubt Jesus recognised that man in his fallen state will always subjugate others. How you treat others under your authority will be determined by your worldview. There is no doubt Jesus treated women, slaves and others much better than the godless regimes around Him.

Mohammed had black slaves and treated them badly. Jesus had no slaves and in fact served humanity. If you can't see that their is little hope for you as truth and rationale means little to you.

ttbn writes: "Their laws are based on Islam, ours on Christianity"

Your claim for christianity's primacy in our civil law is based primarily on acts of plagiarism over the centuries.

ttbn also writes: “Some people believe that positive morality and ethical conduct flow entirely from religion”. The people who believe that are correct - in the case of Christianity,...."

The same applies for morals and ethics.

Denying history in order to make false claims for religions is common among arrogant christians.

Since humankind began living in groups and created the concept of group responsibility in primitive societies, individual behaviour was subject to majority approval in order that the group prospered harmoniously. Especially in the allocation of labour it was recognised by individuals and group leaders that a harmonious group prospered over those that had no such recognition.

Groups who merged into settlements and practising agricultural occupations found it necessary to keep records of harvests, weather and seasons. Records of dispute settlement decisions became essential. Writing on wet clay tablets developed and so did concepts of fairness, justice, guilt, innocence and enterprise relationships between groups, land boundaries, primitive commerce and property held in common.

Codes of Morality and ethics arose, populations, life expectancy and civic duties expanded dramatically as these basic processes and activities became more involved and complex.

There can be no doubt that people were behaving according to precepts that conformed with and promoted peaceful social progress. The metaphysical concepts that were morality and ethics came to be recognised.

That recognition occurred millennia before christianity. That this progress was the gift of gods demeans humankind, creates a parasite that grew fat on human superstition and by claiming knowledge it didn't have, stultifies human intellectual progress.

It is unarguable that European law had as its genesis ancient Roman and ancient Greek legal systems although that does not deny contributions possible from other ancient societies.

Ian,

<<Throughout society there are people with strongly-held views who will argue cogently for many of their stances, but the fact is that this can only amount to advice, not compulsion. The choice to accept or reject that advice rests solely with each individual, not at the whim of external mob pressures.>>

In Australia, is it only advice that ...

+ You shall not steal;
+ You shall not murder;
+ You shall not lie;
+ You shall not bear false witness at the Banking Royal Commission;
+ You shall abide by the speed limit on M1 freeway near my place;
+ You shall not rape;
+ You shall not sexually abuse children;
+ You shall not physically abuse anyone?

Are these commands only advice or are they absolute values in Australian society?

Runner writes: "In Australia their is a good chance that some godless secularist would of murdered Aasia Bibi in the womb."

Your well-attested religious bigotry is being compounded by a dyslexic scholarship in the English language. Old Man, to his credit, accosted you and demonstrated the difference between "their" and "there". Doubtless, the correction has been lost on you. Might I add though, that your error-prone narrative offends primary school English otherwise?

The term "would of" copies the USAian ignorance by showing an appalling ignorance of the way English demonstrates tense in a verb. "would HAVE" is the correct way of expressing your meaning.

Your groveling to theistic tripe takes precedence over a modest pride in your country and its secular heritage. Such a contemptible contrivance condemns you as a gormless bigot. You reduce the sum of humankind's worth simply by your rxistence.

Not Now Soon writes: " There is however too much evidance in the world that God exists for faith to be something without evidance.

It's amazing how theism afflicts the cerebral processes of the godly. This time, it's spelling. EVIDENCE is ignored when faith steps upon stage, for faith is the theist's resort when he or she can find no worthy reason and most often is held tightly in spite of worthy evidence.

The theist by definition has faith because evidence for a deity is a fraudulent perversion of truth. The martyrdom suffered by the theist is relished to compensate for the reputation earned as a fool. He actually thinks it is a good deal.

Pogi,

<<EVIDENCE is ignored when faith steps upon stage, for faith is the theist's resort when he or she can find no worthy reason and most often is held tightly in spite of worthy evidence>>

That's your presupposition. It is not based on the evidence for my faith. <<Evidence is ignored when faith...>> is a straw man. That may be the case for some. It is not for me. My faith is founded on the facts of God's existence, Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection - all objective facts.

Mine is not a blind leap of faith but faith founded on facts. Yes, facts!

<<The theist by definition has faith because evidence for a deity is a fraudulent perversion of truth.>>

Again, that's nothing more than your presupposition pushed onto theists and it seems to be based on your misunderstanding of the evidence God has provided in creation for you to believe in Him.

One second after your last breath, you'll stand before God, 'without excuse', for denying him. Take a read of Romans 1:18-23 at:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+1%3A18-23&version=NIRV

That's just what we need... Another person who confuses having rational or irrational ideas with whether or not the ideas should pass a spelling test, or take part in a spelling bee.

To Pogi.

I get that spelling errors might be a pet peeve for you, because I see it annoying other people to great length. It's a common enough annoyance, but in the large scale of the world, spelling, grammar, or even using a language in a proper and formal way has very little importance outside of the shallow element of presenting what you're saying. To make this point clear. Language changes. Not just spelling, but actual words their usage, and the meaning behind them. Case in point is the difference compared in English when spoken by an American, an Australian, and a Britain. Each country speaks English (as opposed to a different language) but the language is used differently. Even to the degree of some words being spelled slightly different.

Mistakes happen with spelling and with speaking a language, but if the point and the content are understood, then regardless of anything else that's what actually counts. Pet peeve or not, spelling doesn't matter outside of presenting what your saying well. If you can understand what's being said, then that's the important part.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate. Try to continue without blundering on over nothing important. In logical arguments, blundering over something unrelated or unimportant is usually called a red herring. Just an FYI for where spelling falls in any debate outside of an English course.

....Now back to your regularly scheduled debate....

Pogi you said.

<<EVIDENCE is ignored when faith steps upon stage, for faith is the theist's resort when he or she can find no worthy reason and most often is held tightly in spite of worthy evidence. >>

Nope. Wrrong.

<<The theist by definition has faith because evidence for a deity is a fraudulent perversion of truth. The martyrdom suffered by the theist is relished to compensate for the reputation earned as a fool. He actually thinks it is a good deal.>>

Nope. All kinds of nope-ness. Possibly even to the point of "hell no" if one was inclined to outbursts.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Would you like to try again, or just continue on in arguing your assumptions with no basis on reality. So that you can see it better, the evidence of God can be found by 1) The testimonies in people's lives of how God (or someone up there) acted and intervened in their lives. 2) Through study in detail of how the world is. Anatomy, biology, ecosystems, even physics and applying it to how Earth is here and not only had life on it, but still has life abundant and diverse on it without falling apart. Each of these when studied to an in depth amount should come to an awe inspiring conclusion. We are no accident, or chance occurrence. 3) lastly evidence of God can be found by the common measure of communicating with Him. Prayer is it's own evidence if God answers back, replies, or even just resolves what was prayed about.

When evidence is collected enough to come to the correct conclusion that God exists the only other issue then stems down to, what's from God and what isn't. Including what religion(s) are from God and which ones aren't. From there faith is not an obscure thing without reason, but is an active part of the study, reasoning, and search for finding God. This is part of many people's lives in their journey in their faith. The idea that faith is without reason is a lie repeated by those who don't know any better and are too blind to open their eyes to see how it's wrong. Don't be like that Pogi.