A girl raped in a country where Sharia law applies, has been whipped to death.
The "Forum" called "Catholic" (which is illegal) and gives the new name "Blamont" (pseudonym) wrote :
"One might argue that in the Old Testament is said a girl who is raped in a way so that nobody heard her cries, must be liquidated, as her rapist. As dry. "
The" too dry "is particularly heinous.
This kind of text without no reference is probably totally fake, to put in the category of "droit de seigneur" and other popular stupidities time of "Enlightenment".
These comments which include the black Masonic legends are posted on this forum called "Catholic" without anyone even asking the biblical references (very easy to find). And that idiots can thus discredit the Judeo-Christian about a nickname "Catholic Forum" in the midst of those who should defend the Judeo-Christian students who become Freemasons.
Nobody initiative to ask "Blamont" to give his references in the "Old Testament".
Blamont finally gives references, but none for what he accuses the Bible. It is an invention.
The same is to challenge Christians to justify penal institutions of the Old Testament. The justification is the harshness of the times of these criminal statutes, but by virtue of natural law, criminal statutes are never binding in conscience (in the sense that it is not mandatory, they are not part of the Justice required, a fault may go unpunished, has fortiorin moderately punished). Moreover, these provisions are part of criminal law always positive revision. It has nothing to do with sharia does not distinguish between criminal and civil law.
Still "Blamont" is a fraud and nobody on this Forum Catholic "not asked to justify what he said about the girl to" liquidate as dry. " Where did he read that in the Bible?
Blamont finally gives references, but none for what he accuses the Bible. It is an invention.
The same is to challenge Christians to justify penal institutions of the Old Testament. The justification is the harshness of the times of these criminal statutes, but by virtue of natural law, criminal statutes are never binding in conscience (in the sense that it is not mandatory, they are not part of the Justice required, a fault may go unpunished, has fortiorin moderately punished). Moreover, these provisions are part of criminal law always positive revision. It has nothing to do with sharia does not distinguish between criminal and civil law.
Still "Blamont" is a fraud and nobody on this Forum Catholic "not asked to justify what he said about the girl to" liquidate as dry. " Where did he read that in the Bible?
0 comments:
Post a Comment