This is MY reply to Sam's 3rd Mail
 

Note: The WHITE text is OLD text, the NEW text in BLUE refers to the old text.




SAM WROTE:

>Hello,
>
>I do not know why I have continued to receive mail regarding Islam when my
>initial note on the subject made it quite clear that I felt it to be a
>barbarous religion and did not hold it in high enough regard to speak
>further on it.

I WROTE:

Yes, you keep saying that over and over again but you failed in presenting concrete proof.
It's like saying a rock is not a rock just because you say it isn't so.
 
 

SAM WROTE:
>The issue was raised that the Qu'ran teaches men to beat their wives. I do
>not care to get into "why" it does, because there can be no acceptable
>reason. I do not want to compare that to other cultures that have
>woman-beaters, because this is like saying that it is acceptable, or at
>least "not that bad" because others do it.

I WROTE:

No one said anything about "at least "not that bad" because others do it"
It has been compared to SPELL OUT TO YOU that if domestic violence is
rampant in cultures which do not have the Quran, then there MUST BE OTHER REASONS
behind domestic violence and it takes very little open-mindedness to
apply the same reasons to Muslims who beat their wives instead of blaming it
on their religion.
 

SAM WROTE:

>Others commit genocide. It was
>raised that other cultures beat women without instruction from the Qu'ran
>and there must be a larger reason. There is! They are sick. And a
>"scripture" that supports it is even more sick. I will not condone it nor
>will I cling to a primitive book that instructs it. This is how I view the
>Qu'ran. I felt it humorous that Nurse Betty (a.k.a. Snootie Patootie, fareena, etc.)
>complimented me on my work against the Bible and labeled it a BAD book. What
>she failed to realize is that it is no different than the Qu'ran. Sure, they
>say that there are scientific theories and an exact number of words, and
>blah, blah, blah. The same has been said of the Bible long before a man (or
>men)sat down and made up the religion of Islam. Both are books written by
>men. Both are concepts that other men (and women, though these books were
>clearly not written for you, ladies) are told to believe because another man
>says that they are so. This is called a revealed religion. This is also
>called hearsay.
 

I WROTE:

No different from the Quran? Yes!! You keep saying that!!! Frankly, we're
growing kind of tired of the persistant droning. Now if you would please
show us the same things you blame the Bible for having, is also present
in the Quran! Your site exposes the contradictions and inconsistencies
in the Bible so please show us the same thing in The Quran.

Once again you have failed to substantiate any of the things you have claimed.
aren't u committing the act of believing in hearsay as well since you
yourself can't produce evidance.

>>The same has been said of the Bible long before a man (or
>>men)sat down and made up the religion of Islam.

when was this? more than 1400 yrs ago? YES the Bible WAS at one point the
word of God but in case you don't know, there is not a single copy
of the original Bible today. The Bible has been distorted by man, hence, you
see the high level of inconsistencies and contradictions.

If both books are written by a man, why don't YOU produce anything like it?
Can you? Would you have been able to declare these scientific facts 1400
yrs ago. Your girlfriend said, "There are 1000s probably more than that, books
today which are devoid of any mistakes and inconsistencies." When I asked
her to produce one, she didn't even reply to my message!!

I refer you to two URLs. 

 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/miracle_lungs.htm 
 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/miracle_trees.htm 

The work of man?
 
 
 SAM WROTE:

>Other minor issues abound. Baptism by sprinkling or dunking? Hijaab for men
>and women? Who cares? It is all so much blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.
>
>Does it bring you closer to God?
>
>No. Your books clearly take you away from God, though you feel the exact
>opposite. Your books cause dissension and division among you, when they were
>written with unification in mind. I withdrew from several Christian lists
>(which actually interest me) for just this reason. There is no unity when
>people gather to discuss the minor points. It is all so much personality.
>
>So... while this conversation on who should wear a hood or not may seem to
>you like it might interest me... or the larger conversation on whether
>Muslims should engage in conversation with infidels, for that matter, it
>really does not. I am not opposed to conversation on a personal level, mind
>you, but I am not looking to be involved in any kind of Islamic discussion
>group.
>
>So... would the next person who responds to these posts... this thread...
>PLEASE remove my name and e-mail address from the To: section?
 

I WROTE:

As Sarah mentioned, we're not terrorists who are out to mail bomb you. We had a good
laugh about that when it came to the other Wiccan who made a complete fool of herself too.
But if you would like to be not involved in anything like this, DON'T REPLY! Very simple,
it's called DO IT YOURSELF. As long as you reply, I take it that you are looking
for a discussion and I will reply to you.
 

SAM WROTE:

>I would greatly appreciate it, and am sure that you would be happier with
>this infidel out of your hair. =)
 

I WROTE:

Actually, some of us were having quite a bit of fun thank you :)
 



Sponsored by Geocities
Get your Own Free Homepage