From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

There are reports that the CPS, ever a slave to political correctness,
has reopened the case of the Turkish man who burned a Qur'an outside the Turkish embassy while shouting insults at Islam.

In the first place, I find what he did to be distasteful. I would never
burn or disrespect any book considered holy by others, even if I myself
did not regard it as holy. I want them to respect my religion, so I
respect theirs.

That said, I do not agree with the prosecution. Muslims feel they have
the right to burn holy books, destroy holy sites, even kill non-Muslims.
What is sauce for the goose, etc. Here in Britain there are no blasphemy
laws, which means that if a Muslim can burn a Bible and escape penalty, someone else can burn a Qur'an.

After all, if one wishes to be pedantic, every time a Muslim prays "la
illahu allah illah" in Britain, he is committing blasphemy by denying
the divinity of Christ. (Jews, of course, are equally guilty when they
recite the Sh'ma.) And Christians in Israel or in Muslim lands, are
being blasphemous when they pray in the name of Jesus!

Let's just stop being so petty. The God we worship is quite capable of defending His own honour - there is no lack of thunderbolts in heaven!
If He tolerates someone doing or saying something blasphemous, it's a
bit presumptuous for us to take up the cudgels on His behalf!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/02/2026 06:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:

There are reports that the CPS, ever a slave to political correctness,
has reopened the case of the Turkish man who burned a Qur'an outside the Turkish embassy while shouting insults at Islam.

In the first place, I find what he did to be distasteful. I would never
burn or disrespect any book considered holy by others, even if I myself
did not regard it as holy. I want them to respect my religion, so I
respect theirs.

That said, I do not agree with the prosecution. Muslims feel they have
the right to burn holy books, destroy holy sites, even kill non-Muslims. What is sauce for the goose, etc. Here in Britain there are no blasphemy laws, which means that if a Muslim can burn a Bible and escape penalty, someone else can burn a Qur'an.

I think you missed out the word extreme. or at the very least, some,
when mentioning the word Muslim there. That said, I agree with the
man's right to burn the Qu'ran, even if I, like you, believe it wrong to
burn a book considered to be Holy.

After all, if one wishes to be pedantic, every time a Muslim prays "la illahu allah illah"

I hadn't realised Muslims could speak in tongues ;-)

in Britain, he is committing blasphemy by denying
the divinity of Christ. (Jews, of course, are equally guilty when they recite the Sh'ma.) And Christians in Israel or in Muslim lands, are
being blasphemous when they pray in the name of Jesus!

Why only in Israel or Mulsim lands?
> Let's just stop being so petty. The God we worship is quite capable of

defending His own honour - there is no lack of thunderbolts in heaven!
If He tolerates someone doing or saying something blasphemous, it's a
bit presumptuous for us to take up the cudgels on His behalf!

Agreed, although I once did it myself when admonishing someone (in a
very mild way) for using Jesus Christ as a swear word.



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* "Kendall K. Down" <10n3mdo$2dfkd$2@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 18 Feb 2026 06:32:23 +0000:

That said, I do not agree with the prosecution. Muslims feel they have
the right to burn holy books, destroy holy sites, even kill
non-Muslims. What is sauce for the goose, etc. Here in Britain there
are no blasphemy laws, which means that if a Muslim can burn a Bible
and escape penalty, someone else can burn a Qur'an.

I think the antisemitism laws are the equivalent of the blasphemy for
our times and will be fulfil to the t in the traditional use of the
blasphemy laws (v. naboth, jesus etc)



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/02/2026 15:59, John wrote:

I hadn't realised Muslims could speak in tongues ;-)

The poor wretches have no choice. God only speaks Arabic, apparently. So
if you want to read what He says, you have to learn Arabic. If you want
to pray and be heard, you have to learn Arabic.

Why only in Israel or Mulsim lands?

Because Jews and Muslims reject the idea of a Trinity, whereas if you go
to India, for example, the Hindus have no problem with worshipping Jesus
and just add Him to the 3,000,000 other gods they have.

Agreed, although I once did it myself when admonishing someone (in a
very mild way) for using Jesus Christ as a swear word.

I don't see anything wrong with that. But if you had grabbed a knife and
tried to stab him in defense of God - which apparently is what some
Muslim did when he spotted this chap burning the Qur'an - then you would definitely be usurping God's prerogative.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/02/2026 16:18, Madhu wrote:

I think the antisemitism laws are the equivalent of the blasphemy for
our times and will be fulfil to the t in the traditional use of the
blasphemy laws (v. naboth, jesus etc)

I'm inclined to agree. No nation, race or religion should be above
criticism, but Jews bleat on about "anti-semitism" any time that Israel
is criticised. The laws were intended to prevent what Hitler did, but
they have been used to give Jews a special status which they, not
unnaturally, have exploited.

I would like to see all anti-semitism legislation repealed and replaced
with anti-human legislation (if you can imagine such a thing). It is
wrong to express hatred against Jews, but it is *equally* wrong to
express hatred against Africans, Scandinavians or the inhabitants of
Easter Island.

And no individual should escape criticism just because he is a Jew. If
someone cheats you, he should face the full rigour of the law, whether
he is Irish, Venezualan or a Jew.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/02/2026 06:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:

After all, if one wishes to be pedantic, every time a Muslim prays "la illahu allah illah" in Britain, he is committing blasphemy by denying
the divinity of Christ. (Jews, of course, are equally guilty when they recite the Sh'ma.) And Christians in Israel or in Muslim lands, are
being blasphemous when they pray in the name of Jesus!

How is the Sh'ma blasphemous? Is the issue: "the LORD is one", which is
of course a straight quote from Deuteronomy?

If so, are all copies of the OT blasphemous?

Just a bit intrigued.







--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 19/02/2026 14:03, GB wrote:

How is the Sh'ma blasphemous? Is the issue: "the LORD is one", which is
of course a straight quote from Deuteronomy?

Obviously the Sh'ma is not blasphemous. I know exactly where it comes
from and can repeat it in Hebrew. But someone could claim that by
denying the Christian doctrine of the Trinity it was blasphemous, just
the same as Jews might assert that Christians who teach the Trinity are
being blasphemous.

If so, are all copies of the OT blasphemous?

I have known Christians who refused to read the Old Testament because
they felt it did not give a correct understanding of God. Needless to
say, I deplore such an attitude.

Just a bit intrigued.

And I apologise for any offence. I was making a point, not stating my
belief.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 20/02/2026 06:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 19/02/2026 14:03, GB wrote:

How is the Sh'ma blasphemous? Is the issue: "the LORD is one", which
is of course a straight quote from Deuteronomy?

Obviously the Sh'ma is not blasphemous. I know exactly where it comes
from and can repeat it in Hebrew. But someone could claim that by
denying the Christian doctrine of the Trinity it was blasphemous, just
the same as Jews might assert that Christians who teach the Trinity are being blasphemous.

If so, are all copies of the OT blasphemous?

I have known Christians who refused to read the Old Testament because
they felt it did not give a correct understanding of God. Needless to
say, I deplore such an attitude.

Just a bit intrigued.

And I apologise for any offence. I was making a point, not stating my belief.

No offence whatsoever on my part.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

GB wrote:

On 20/02/2026 06:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 19/02/2026 14:03, GB wrote:

How is the Sh'ma blasphemous? Is the issue: "the LORD is one", which
is of course a straight quote from Deuteronomy?

Obviously the Sh'ma is not blasphemous. I know exactly where it comes
from and can repeat it in Hebrew. But someone could claim that by
denying the Christian doctrine of the Trinity it was blasphemous, just
the same as Jews might assert that Christians who teach the Trinity
are being blasphemous.

---------------------------------------

All depends on which is true.



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 22/02/2026 21:28, Feardul Amu wrote:

All depends on which is true.

From God's point of view that is doubtless correct. However we are
usually not so privileged as to have direct access to the Divinity's mind.

We are, of course, free to argue a case, but we should always respect
another person's beliefs, even if we consider them wrong. I would never
dream of accusing a Muslim or a Jew of blasphemy, even though I consider
their insistence on the unity of God unnecessary or even offensive.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 24/02/2026 18:54, Feardul Amu wrote:

We have been told about it, the gospels are full of the word of God.

Perhaps you would care to remind us of the evidences that the gospels
are indeed the word of God?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 24/02/2026 18:54, Feardul Amu wrote:

We have been told about it, the gospels are full of the word of God.

Perhaps you would care to remind us of the evidences that the gospels
are indeed the word of God?

-------------------------------------------

Why ask for evidence, what good is it.

Mankind is hardely able to read evidence, even court evidence can be flawed.

The apostles got evidence in the miracles, they still had to make an act
of faith.

St. Thomas got dramatic evidence of the risen Christ, he still had to
make an act of faith.

'Doubt no longer, but believe' Christ said to him.

Why would He say that, if seeing was believing?




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 26/02/2026 15:12, Feardul Amu wrote:

Why ask for evidence, what good is it.

Assuming that your user name indicates that you are a foreigner, you may
have grown up with the idea that merely asserting something is
sufficient evidence of its truth. The folly of that attitude was nicely exemplified by Tariq Ali, who seemed genuinely hurt that the world's
press refused to believe his assertion that American tanks were nowhere
near Baghdad and instead preferred to think that seeing tanks trundling
down the road behind Mr Ali was better evidence than his assertion.

Mankind is hardely able to read evidence, even court evidence can be
flawed.

Certianly, evidence can be flawed - which is why it is useful to
consider and test the evidence.

The apostles got evidence in the miracles, they still had to make an act
of faith.

Or they said they did. Are any of the people healed still alive today?
Or have they at least left independent accounts of their healing?

St. Thomas got dramatic evidence of the risen Christ, he still had to
make an act of faith. 'Doubt no longer, but believe' Christ said to him.

Quite so. Now I am the Messiah and yesterday I raised three people from
the dead. You may have to make an act of faith, but I hope that you are
going to believe me.

You don't?

Why do you believe the gospels but do not believe my claim?

Why would He say that, if seeing was believing?

St John said, "Test all things, hold fast to that which is true".

Now as it happens, I think it likely that you and I believe the same
things about Jesus (and no, I do not claim to be the Messiah), but there
are lots of people out there who do not believe but who might be brought
to belief if we can make out a reasonable case.

There are two areas which might support that case. The first is the
historical evidence that Jesus existed or even that He was crucified;
evidence that the documents about Him have not been altered by people
with an interest in promoting particular beliefs.

The second is to point to evidence that Jesus is alive and at work in
people's lives today. Modern-day miracles, if you like.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2