Marocc

He didn't say it to all Mankind, but to magistrates.

We all contribute but we don't contribute the same. Some contributions are more negative others more positive. And there might somewhere be a man in seclusion from the rest of the population, what would happen to him?

Is there such a thing in Christianity as a 'second death', death of the soul? Purposeless life must lead to hell.

They don't want an evil god. They want to think they are God.

I wish the world had you in the white house. Things would be so much better. Like they used to be when good old trump was leading the way..

Hey, we're talking about your sinfulness, not Trump's. And pride can't be measured.

It's your thinking that's twisted. Makes it impossible for you to understand anything that isn't. Pretty much, though I would rather say the fact that He is God makes Him capable of that than that it is what makes Him God.

The issue is with your statement here. ^ That doesn't fit with what I said nor with what you now say here: To put it real simply, saying that if God wasn't the one casing people to die He wouldn't be a God, is on no way the same as saying (as you said) that God is 'only' God 'because he kills and allows others to kill'.

Pride. That didn't last long.

No. As usual your reading comprehension skills are found to be lacking.

If God didn't 'kill' as a 'cause to die' or 'allow someone to kill' then He wouldn't be a God at all.

Despite not exactly supporting the values of Christianity or respecting probably any of the ten commandments, would you still call him a Christian?

A Christian woman can marry a muslim man.

There are plenty different places from what you describe.

On 7/13/2019 at 5:13 PM, Michael Hardner said:"Do you believe Christians and Jews should have the right to practice their faith in Muslim countries in an atmosphere of safety? Does Islam require that?" It started from this ^ she's not at risk due to a fatwa. She's at risk because she's pissed off the much spoken about extremists. No one but a criminal goes and kills someone like that and it takes some amount of that same attitude to throw threats - which is really what she's getting mostly, isn't it? She likes to bring it up as she is trying to get the world to hate Muslims. How could she miss a chance to tell of 'all her body guards' and to give the impression she can't use the toilet on her own. (she's also told numerous alleged and apparently evident (haven't dwelled on it personally) lies about herself and her history) 29 minutes ago, dialamah said:"I looked back and it looks to me like the question arose in relation to Hirsi Ali who is at risk in Western countries due to a fatw In regards to fatwas to kill blasphemers: And such a fatwa as you propose would be entirely unislamic." That's out of context.

The question was why are they not safe in Muslim countries. The basis of the question is wrong because it implies none of them are safe in Muslim countries, but some of them are safe. I'm obviously not talking about random things but such circumstancial factors as the country, city and even specific location they stay in, how they "practice their religion" (there's Christian missionaries out there too), whether they try to spread their religion or influence other people by it, whether they wear clothing that may express their religion more or less, what kind of work they do (if it happens to relate to your religion or be against Islam) who they are married to if they are, etc. This isn't about fatwas but about practicing their religion. I'm sure I've never said fatwas are ignorable. Maybe you mean fatwa for killing an apostate - never said it about that either. The answer is actually very simple. It's a mixture of politics, terrorism, culture and human nature that makes man capable of murder. My issue was with the form of the question and with giving a simple answer to a complicated question. I'm sure everyone knows ^that^ already.

They like to give that impression. You don't actually expect them to follow the plan, do you? That doesn't mean they would try to stop others from doing it.

How safe they are depends.

That shouldn't have a great affect.

Then why are they constantly there bombing and on the ground? Russia is there in a proxy war with US and US can't lose that war.

The movement you're looking for is probably the "anti-islam" movement. There's quite a few "movements" going on in the Muslim world, but I don't think they interest you. It would be too complicated to read and copy past if the western media doesn't translate it into your "civilised" language first, i.e. The bad guys did this and the good guys did that and the solution is obviously whatever the president of the United States suggests. (if both sides are "bad" the US should bomb them out of existence - or pay someone else for doing that) It's funny Trump was at some point all about the two state solution and then it turned out one of his colleagues was funding the construction of the illegal Israeli settlements.

Things were great in Spain during that time though - check the history books. Not adapted to technology.. Never been in an Islamic country, have you?

Pobably about 19 actually.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/german-government-ordered-allow-isil-140737936.html "German courts have ordered Angela Merkel’s government must allow an Isil bride and her children home. In the first ruling of its kind, a court ordered that the government must repatriate the woman from a refugee camp in Syria for the safety of her children. The families of dozens of other German Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) volunteers are expected to seize on the ruling as they campaign for the return of their relatives. Like the UK, Germany has so far refused to repatriate citizens who travelled to the Middle East to join Isil, fearing they could pose a security risk. The woman in the new ruling, who has not been named, is currently living in the al-Hol refugee camp in Syria with her three children aged two, seven and eight. She is understood to be from the Lower Saxony region of Germany. In an urgent hearing, the court found that conditions in the camp, recently described as “horrifying” by the International Red Cross, presented a serious danger to the children. The case was brought by relatives who sued the German government to force it to arrange the children’s return. The government argued it was under no obligation to allow the woman’s return because she joined Isil of her own volition. The court made no ruling on her rights, but ruled her children were entitled to protection as German citizens and ordered the government to repatriate her because it was impossible for them to leave the camp without her. Kurdish authorities in control of the refugee camp want European countries to take their citizens back and have ruled out allowing children to return alone. “This is a fundamental decision in which the foreign ministry was clearly told that it cannot avoid political and legal responsibility,” Dirk Schoenian, a lawyer for the woman’s relatives said. “Now we finally have a ruling from a German court that Germany is obliged to take back not only the children, but also their mother,” Claudia Dantschke of Hayat Deutschland, a counselling centre for the relatives of Isil volunteers, told the broadcaster Deutsche Welle. The German foreign ministry said the ruling was “being examined” and a decision had not yet been made on whether to appeal."

Your questions don't interest me much.