- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,09:29) Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 28 2010,09:14) I also didnt know it was common in historical Bedoin society. Quote….Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and remain common in some modern societies worldwide.[21] American scholar Colin Turner suggests that such marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West.[21] In modern times, however, the issue of Muhammad marrying and having sexual relations with a girl so young has been used to criticize him, particularly in the West, where there is heightened concern about child sexual abuse and related issues.[21] In response some modern Muslim apologists have argued that adding up other dates given in the traditional sources may indicate that Aisha was older. Such a tactic was employed by the Indian Ahmadiyya figure Maulana Muhammad Ali.[22] However, scholars such as Watt accept the traditional account. ….unquote
Of course the question that remains with mohammad's pedophilia is whether it is wrong today to have sex with minors who have not reached the age of consent nor sexual awareness.If it is wrong, if all the countries that have a legal age of consent are doing the right thing, then WHAT IS THE POINT OF ISLAM?
What enduring divine principles does it teach that are timeless? Why would you slavishly submit to a religion or religious leader who in the past taught things that are now known to be ethically repugnant?
You can see why islamic countries are amongst the poorest and most backward in the world, even though at one point they were amongst the most enlightened. They are guilty of sticking to the same mentality and getting the same Dark Age results, to paraphrase Einstein.
Was mohammad right or wrong to have sex with a nine year old? Should we perhaps not do as mohammad did?
Stuart
STU,Do you not admit that at the time when you say the Islamic countries were among the most enlightened Muhammad was still the same Muhammad?
You speak as if you have no sense. I already told you Morality comes from God not STU (Who doesn't believe in Absolute Morality) What we think is right or wrong is of no consequence what God has taught us is of consequence. Now, in the context of God show me where it is wrong?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,09:48) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,00:23) Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 27 2010,21:37) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,17:34) karmarie Do you feel comfortable with the original 'teacher' of islam being a pedophile
Quote Im not sure about that I havent looked into it much?
He married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage (ie raped a minor) when she was nine.Nice, eh?
That doesnt seem right to me either.
No? Well it happens to be true. Maybe you should consider looking at some websites that are critical of islam, instead of the ones that praise it all with glazed eyes and lies!Stuart
STU,If you don't accept the Bible or the Quran as true and you don't accept any absolutes at all. Where are you getting your standards from? Do you just make it up as you go along?
If anyone believe in the Holy Scriptures they should find out what the scriptures say about those matters but we are not to create our own standards of morality because there is a way that seems right to men that ends in death.
Your argument is as simple to refute as making a list of decent, ethical atheists who have lived by the highest standards and have contributed much to improving the wellbeing and dignity of their fellow humans, never having once harmed anyone intentionally, or used the bible to justify pedophilia even. They may reject the bible and koran, but you have not made an ethical case against doing that, and I think I have made the case very well FOR rejecting both on moral grounds.Shall I make such a list of atheists for you?
Stuart
Once again you are being a Hypocrite so I will ask you again for the third time are there ABSOLUTE MORALS?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:46) Clearly this is talking about those being aggressive that if they restrain themselves from being aggressive we shall accept their peace. This has nothing to do with someone wanting to change the religion. Once again STU you are incorrect. The Quran clearly says: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256)Now no amount of deceit from you can change that fact. Notice it doesn't even mention a certain faith here, it does not say Islam or Christian or Judaism it CLEARLY SAYS:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
What you don't understand STU is religion is the way someone believes in God. Rejecting evil such as disbelief as you embrace.
You have ignored the main point, which is that muslims take enmity to mean rejection of islam, and that is enough of an offense to invoke the “kill them where you find them clause”, as I have shown you. This is open to interpretation, and the death penalty is how some muslims interpret it.I would walk quietly away from this murderous war of definitions if it were me, but you seem happy enough standing beside those who kill in the name of your religion.
You have not made an ethical case for rejecting disbelief. Your assertion of it is a fallacious circular argument.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:53) Once again you are being a Hypocrite so I will ask you again for the third time are there ABSOLUTE MORALS?
Quoting myself, again:Quote Looking at our species from outside, you would have to conclude that all morals are treated as absolute, even though they are pragmatic and respond to evolutionary selection pressures in both the genetic and cultural senses of that. From inside, we treat morals as absolute principles.
You might benefit from looking up hypocrisy in the dictionary.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:51) Do you not admit that at the time when you say the Islamic countries were among the most enlightened Muhammad was still the same Muhammad? You speak as if you have no sense. I already told you Morality comes from God not STU (Who doesn't believe in Absolute Morality) What we think is right or wrong is of no consequence what God has taught us is of consequence. Now, in the context of God show me where it is wrong?
The islamic golden age was not contemporary with the time of mohammad, and I don't think it was achieved by application of the principles he had written down for him.You have asserted that morality comes from your god, but I have asserted with just as much validity that it does not, and I have explained where both our ethics come from without reference to a god that cannot even be shown unambiguously to exist.
The answer to your assertion about what your god has taught you is a question:
WHAT GOD?
(Note that I am not asking you 'which god'?!)
Also, tell me one ethical act that I cannot do because I have not been taught it.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,09:55) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:46) Clearly this is talking about those being aggressive that if they restrain themselves from being aggressive we shall accept their peace. This has nothing to do with someone wanting to change the religion. Once again STU you are incorrect. The Quran clearly says: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256)Now no amount of deceit from you can change that fact. Notice it doesn't even mention a certain faith here, it does not say Islam or Christian or Judaism it CLEARLY SAYS:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
What you don't understand STU is religion is the way someone believes in God. Rejecting evil such as disbelief as you embrace.
You have ignored the main point, which is that muslims take enmity to mean rejection of islam, and that is enough of an offense to invoke the “kill them where you find them clause”, as I have shown you. This is open to interpretation, and the death penalty is how some muslims interpret it.I would walk quietly away from this murderous war of definitions if it were me, but you seem happy enough standing beside those who kill in the name of your religion.
You have not made an ethical case for rejecting disbelief. Your assertion of it is a fallacious circular argument.
Stuart
Open to interpretation does not mean it is the way you interpret it. You are clearly wrong!Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,10:09) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,09:55) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:46) Clearly this is talking about those being aggressive that if they restrain themselves from being aggressive we shall accept their peace. This has nothing to do with someone wanting to change the religion. Once again STU you are incorrect. The Quran clearly says: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256)Now no amount of deceit from you can change that fact. Notice it doesn't even mention a certain faith here, it does not say Islam or Christian or Judaism it CLEARLY SAYS:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
What you don't understand STU is religion is the way someone believes in God. Rejecting evil such as disbelief as you embrace.
You have ignored the main point, which is that muslims take enmity to mean rejection of islam, and that is enough of an offense to invoke the “kill them where you find them clause”, as I have shown you. This is open to interpretation, and the death penalty is how some muslims interpret it.I would walk quietly away from this murderous war of definitions if it were me, but you seem happy enough standing beside those who kill in the name of your religion.
You have not made an ethical case for rejecting disbelief. Your assertion of it is a fallacious circular argument.
Stuart
Open to interpretation does not mean it is the way you interpret it. You are clearly wrong!
What does that even mean?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,09:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,09:53) Once again you are being a Hypocrite so I will ask you again for the third time are there ABSOLUTE MORALS?
Quoting myself, again:Quote Looking at our species from outside, you would have to conclude that all morals are treated as absolute, even though they are pragmatic and respond to evolutionary selection pressures in both the genetic and cultural senses of that. From inside, we treat morals as absolute principles.
You might benefit from looking up hypocrisy in the dictionary.
Stuart
You said we treat morals as absolute principles and that is not an answer.If they are not absolute principles then it doesn't matter how we treat them because you are relegating morals to arbitrary principles.
STU, you may have gotten over with all your gobbly gook when talking with someone else but (God willing) that will not be the case when talking with me, My faith is based upon Knowledge, you cannot just say anything and not expect to have to prove it or not have it proved otherwise to you.
Your intellect seems stunted from dishonesty, you waiver constantly from taking a stand on something and then also saying that your stand is not absolute. You are unprincipled, yes! You are ABSOLUTELY without principle.
(God Willing) I will make this fact clearer and clearer. You do not believe in God, You do not believe in Absolute Morality, You do not care what the Bible or Quran says, You do want every believer here and elsewhere to drop there religion, you will try to cause mischief or instigate one faith against another in hope of causing friction where there is none, You will attempt to mislead, misinterpret, switch context, switch meaning, ignore evidence and do all manner of ill conceived plans to disrupt, disassemble and destroy the faith of others and why?
All because you have a disease, The Atheist Disease, you feel no love, you even said you feel no love and that coldness you want to share with others, you want to steal their joy, their warmth it is true that snakes are cold blooded animals it is true that snakes are subtle but a snake is still a snake.
No, I am treating them as absolutes, even if objectively that is an arbitrary way to treat them. Are you suggesting that there is any difference with what you claim? You say there is freedom of religion in islam, well that must mean you have freedom to accept or reject the view that ethics are the preserve of god-belief. You would be inconsistent to state that you can have both freedom in this view AND you can't!
Your faith is based on assertion, or adherence to the assertions of others. None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Your faith does not even state an absolute and definable ethical position on homicide that is not open to a wide range of very reasonable interpretation, from that of the pacifist to that of the suicide bomber. It would appear my ethical position on that is absolute and yours isn't, when considering all the equivocation and dodging you did on the subject in another thread.
I do not want every believer to drop their religion, that would be prostyletising which I have consciously avoided. I advocate high standards of belief, which are not assailed by mere assertions of Imaginary Friends on the basis of hearsay, fear or the imaginings of susceptible human brains.
I have never ignored any unambiguous evidence. Can you remind me of one example?
I'm not sure where your laughable assertion about 'not feeling love' comes from. It would appear that I feel more love for gay people than you (who claims they are worthy of death), more love for children and their wellbeing than the founder of your faith system appeared to have, more love for apostates than sharia law has, and more love for the mental wellbeing of posters here than you do.
That is indeed the 'atheist disease' talking. Accept nothing but the highest standards in what you believe.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,10:35) No, I am treating them as absolutes, even if objectively that is an arbitrary way to treat them. Are you suggesting that there is any difference with what you claim? You say there is freedom of religion in islam, well that must mean you have freedom to accept or reject the view that ethics are the preserve of god-belief. You would be inconsistent to state that you can have both freedom in this view AND you can't! Your faith is based on assertion, or adherence to the assertions of others. None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Your faith does not even state an absolute and definable ethical position on homicide that is not open to a wide range of very reasonable interpretation, from that of the pacifist to that of the suicide bomber. It would appear my ethical position on that is absolute and yours isn't, when considering all the equivocation and dodging you did on the subject in another thread.
I do not want every believer to drop their religion, that would be prostyletising which I have consciously avoided. I advocate high standards of belief, which are not assailed by mere assertions of Imaginary Friends on the basis of hearsay, fear or the imaginings of susceptible human brains.
I have never ignored any unambiguous evidence. Can you remind me of one example?
I'm not sure where your laughable assertion about 'not feeling love' comes from. It would appear that I feel more love for gay people than you (who claims they are worthy of death), more love for children and their wellbeing than the founder of your faith system appeared to have, more love for apostates than sharia law has, and more love for the mental wellbeing of posters here than you do.
That is indeed the 'atheist disease' talking. Accept nothing but the highest standards in what you believe.
Stuart
Quote None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Now you believe in Universal ethics? What are those?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,10:59) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,10:35) No, I am treating them as absolutes, even if objectively that is an arbitrary way to treat them. Are you suggesting that there is any difference with what you claim? You say there is freedom of religion in islam, well that must mean you have freedom to accept or reject the view that ethics are the preserve of god-belief. You would be inconsistent to state that you can have both freedom in this view AND you can't! Your faith is based on assertion, or adherence to the assertions of others. None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Your faith does not even state an absolute and definable ethical position on homicide that is not open to a wide range of very reasonable interpretation, from that of the pacifist to that of the suicide bomber. It would appear my ethical position on that is absolute and yours isn't, when considering all the equivocation and dodging you did on the subject in another thread.
I do not want every believer to drop their religion, that would be prostyletising which I have consciously avoided. I advocate high standards of belief, which are not assailed by mere assertions of Imaginary Friends on the basis of hearsay, fear or the imaginings of susceptible human brains.
I have never ignored any unambiguous evidence. Can you remind me of one example?
I'm not sure where your laughable assertion about 'not feeling love' comes from. It would appear that I feel more love for gay people than you (who claims they are worthy of death), more love for children and their wellbeing than the founder of your faith system appeared to have, more love for apostates than sharia law has, and more love for the mental wellbeing of posters here than you do.
That is indeed the 'atheist disease' talking. Accept nothing but the highest standards in what you believe.
Stuart
Quote None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Now you believe in Universal ethics? What are those?
The ethical principles that people from whatever religious background or no delusion tend to believe in common, those things that religions claim they teach even though they have been around for much longer than the religion has.Don't kill people
Don't steal
Don't take unfair advantageThese are examples of things that, whether they are good at following them, people universally tend to agree on.
It is islam that takes the first one and makes it into a pig's breakfast!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,11:55) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,10:59) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,10:35) No, I am treating them as absolutes, even if objectively that is an arbitrary way to treat them. Are you suggesting that there is any difference with what you claim? You say there is freedom of religion in islam, well that must mean you have freedom to accept or reject the view that ethics are the preserve of god-belief. You would be inconsistent to state that you can have both freedom in this view AND you can't! Your faith is based on assertion, or adherence to the assertions of others. None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Your faith does not even state an absolute and definable ethical position on homicide that is not open to a wide range of very reasonable interpretation, from that of the pacifist to that of the suicide bomber. It would appear my ethical position on that is absolute and yours isn't, when considering all the equivocation and dodging you did on the subject in another thread.
I do not want every believer to drop their religion, that would be prostyletising which I have consciously avoided. I advocate high standards of belief, which are not assailed by mere assertions of Imaginary Friends on the basis of hearsay, fear or the imaginings of susceptible human brains.
I have never ignored any unambiguous evidence. Can you remind me of one example?
I'm not sure where your laughable assertion about 'not feeling love' comes from. It would appear that I feel more love for gay people than you (who claims they are worthy of death), more love for children and their wellbeing than the founder of your faith system appeared to have, more love for apostates than sharia law has, and more love for the mental wellbeing of posters here than you do.
That is indeed the 'atheist disease' talking. Accept nothing but the highest standards in what you believe.
Stuart
Quote None of it is justified in universal ethical terms. Now you believe in Universal ethics? What are those?
The ethical principles that people from whatever religious background or no delusion tend to believe in common, those things that religions claim they teach even though they have been around for much longer than the religion has.Don't kill people
Don't steal
Don't take unfair advantageThese are examples of things that, whether they are good at following them, people universally tend to agree on.
It is islam that takes the first one and makes it into a pig's breakfast!
Stuart
How doe Islam vary on that first one?Because it says don't kill people EXCEPT in the following (poorly defined) circumstances…
Whereas most people just say you should only kill if it is the minimum act required to physically defend yourself.
The koran, equivocates thus:
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. – 2:191
What is persecution? This is completely open to interpretation, and could be used to justify killing by anyone who felt that, in their own opinion, they had been persecuted.
8:65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.
Overcome: does it mean kill?
See how the koran leaves gaps for lunatics to make excuses for their violence? There is nothing universally understood about these Sura: it is perfectly reasonable to call them incitement to crusade.
Which is exactly what happened, of course.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,14:32) Because it says don't kill people EXCEPT in the following (poorly defined) circumstances… Whereas most people just say you should only kill if it is the minimum act required to physically defend yourself.
The koran, equivocates thus:
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. – 2:191
What is persecution? This is completely open to interpretation, and could be used to justify killing by anyone who felt that, in their own opinion, they had been persecuted.
8:65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.
Overcome: does it mean kill?
See how the koran leaves gaps for lunatics to make excuses for their violence? There is nothing universally understood about these Sura: it is perfectly reasonable to call them incitement to crusade.
Which is exactly what happened, of course.
Stuart
What does the Bible say?How does it vary?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,18:06) What does the Bible say? How does it vary?
Hi BD,The Bible does not vary, only the 'book of fraud' varies.
Stuart has done a good Job of pointing out to you the many inconsistencies in it,
which you continue to deny do to your satanic brainwashing, you continue seeing lies as 'truth'.James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above(The Bible=63 is “the word” of “YHVH”=63),
and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.YHVH is GOD=117
PSALM 117 “is” [The Bible's Center], AND the “[smallest chapter]” of the [LARGEST BOOK]!
Witnessing to the world in behalf of…
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD)YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! (Psalm 45:17)
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:18) Which bit? The Jewish bit or the christian bit? Stuart
The Jewish bit is the Christian bit, all of it was written by Jews, right?Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 29 2010,03:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,18:06) What does the Bible say? How does it vary?
Hi BD,The Bible does not vary, only the 'book of fraud' varies.
Stuart has done a good Job of pointing out to you the many inconsistencies in it,
which you continue to deny do to your satanic brainwashing, you continue seeing lies as 'truth'.James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above(The Bible=63 is “the word” of “YHVH”=63),
and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.YHVH is GOD=117
PSALM 117 “is” [The Bible's Center], AND the “[smallest chapter]” of the [LARGEST BOOK]!
Witnessing to the world in behalf of…
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD)YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! (Psalm 45:17)
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
ED,You didn't understand the question. I asked how did the bible vary in regards to episodes of violence or punishments of sin or views in what leads a person to hell?
Does the Bible like The Quran warn people of Hell?
Does the Bible like the Quran call homosexuality an Abomination?
Does the Bible like The Quran call Adultery a great sin?
Does The Bible like The Quran call bearing false witness a great sin?
Now, how is the Quran “the book of fraud”? Speak if you know but when you do speak once again keep in mind you speak against God Almighty so be reasonable and honest if you doubt.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 29 2010,04:51) Quote Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 28 2010,18:06) What does the Bible say? How does it vary?
The Bible does not vary, only the 'book of fraud' varies.
Stuart has done a good Job of pointing out to you the many inconsistencies in it,
which you continue to deny do to your satanic brainwashing, you continue seeing lies as 'truth'.James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above(The Bible=63 is “the word” of “YHVH”=63),
and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.YHVH is GOD=117
PSALM 117 “is” [The Bible's Center], AND the “[smallest chapter]” of the [LARGEST BOOK]!
Witnessing to the world in behalf of…
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD)YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! (Psalm 45:17)
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgYou didn't understand the question. I asked how did the bible vary in regards to
episodes of violence or punishments of sin or views in what leads a person to hell?
Now, how is the Quran “the book of fraud”? Speak if you know
You have hardened you heart against the REAL GOD.Talking to you is a waste of my time!
I will “only” respond to your 'false truths',
because I don't want others to be mislead by your lies.
Your false curse of a god does not scare me.Mt:10:28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear him(YHVH) which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.Lk:12:4: And I say unto you my friends (friends of God's Son: [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă ),
Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.The thing that God has blessed me with today is the revelation that God honours and respects women so much that
he calls Messiah in the Quran “Jesus Son of Mary”What a big jump from the biblical perspective of pretty much ignoring Mary and her motherhood of Christ Jesus but at the same time
the Quran is clearly saying this is THE MOTHER of JESUS, ALLAH gave her this child through HIS Creative Power not by means of man or flesh and blood He is The Son of Mary
she is not
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
