Because it's not religion of peace. I got to give that to Jesus, guy was practically a hippie. You can't say the same about Islam.
And before anyone points out the passages in the quran about living in peace with others, know that those passages are from time when Muhammad's position was weak. So of course he was preaching of peace. But soon as he was stronger again, it was "off with the heads of heretics and anyone else who doesn't accept Allah." And the thing about quran is that the later "prophecies" of Muhammad always override the older texts when they are conflicting.
There is a difference between "Lead" and "Have total control", the former is the context of the verse
You know the physical differences between male and female, and emotional differences to come with them
The punishment inflicted on the disobedient woman is not paying her attention in communication, that is done only if the delivered words of the woman to top her shape "IF" she displays disobedience, if it works, then the disturbance ends there, if it doesn't, there comes a time when hitting is the alternative, and there is a limit to how hard the man is allowed to hit the woman. There is a difference between hitting and beating
The hitting rule does not apply (AT ALL) if the woman is in her period or pregnant, especially when pregnant
Translation can come as misguiding, cause the original words come in Arabic, that language rules and style has massive difference, even metaphors sometimes can work in a misguiding way translated in another language, like English
Some mistakes come from the one translating the text
See this is what I can't wrap my head around. Why is hitting an option, even if it's a final solution? And if it indeed means only a light touch, how does that make the woman less obidient? Doesn't make any sense. I think it literally translates to hitting, but you just try to explain this away the best you can because you obviously see that it is wrong, but still your religiously wired brains refuse to accept it.
What planet do you live on where the husband is always the head of the family?
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Pretty it up with as many words as you want, but telling a wife she should submit to or obey her husband, while not making similar demands on the man, is deeply offensive and sexist.
It isn't saying anything sexist at all.It's defining the family hierarchy.As Christ is Head of the Church a man should be head of the family.It's defining roles,but it doesn't mean one is inferior to the other.Christ is under God The Father,but is still equal with God.This should not be difficult to understand.
I don't get why you're so insistently defending what this guy has said, anyway. Ephesians was either written by St. Paul or one of his followers. There's no reason to assume the author is any more intelligent than you or me.
Do you also agree with another passage from Ephesians? "So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed." (Eph 4:17-19)
Even the other half of those rules is bad enough. You see unequality still. You see women get raped and being accused of adultery, because they don't have four witnesses to it. That is required in rape cases, see. Barbaric religion.
That's not an inherent fault of the religion. There are a lot of Muslim theocracies. There have been a lot of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist theocracies. Theocracies aren't unique to Islam at all. And the Muslim theocracies are a fairly new thing. They really started up in the late 70s when the USSR invaded the region and the United States financially supported militant religious fundamentalist groups to overthrow them, who then became the new governments in the region once the Soviets left. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was no less of a Muslim nation than it is now but the treatment of women and the way they lived their lives was much different and a lot closer to how it was in the west at the time. I mean, take a look at this:
You see unequality still. You see women get raped and being accused of adultery, because they don't have four witnesses to it. That is required in rape cases, see. Barbaric religion.
How often do you honestly think that goes on in Muslim communities in the United States, or Europe, or Canada, or Australia, or basically anywhere that isn't a poor, war torn, third world **** hole? That kind of stuff has a lot more to do with location and economics than theology, and even within those impoverished countries there are loads of people who don't buy into that kind of behavior.
That's not an inherent fault of the religion. There are a lot of Muslim theocracies. There have been a lot of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist theocracies. Theocracies aren't unique to Islam at all. And the Muslim theocracies are a fairly new thing. They really started up in the late 70s when the USSR invaded the region and the United States financially supported militant religious fundamentalist groups to overthrow them, who then became the new governments in the region once the Soviets left. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was no less of a Muslim nation than it is now but the treatment of women and the way they lives their lives was much different and a lot closer to how it was in the west at the time. I mean, take a look at this:
Well as you can see, religion poisons everything. You see all the muslim countries that don't have years of wars, and yet they still are very unequal and backwards.
What's wrong with not eating pork, not drinking alcohol, growing a beard, and remembering to pray five times day?
How often do you honestly think that goes on in Muslim communities in the United States, or Europe, or Canada, or Australia, or basically anywhere that isn't a poor, war torn, third world **** hole? That kind of stuff has a lot more to do with location and economics than theology, and even within those impoverished countries there are loads of people who don't buy into that kind of behavior.
Maybe not. There is just these passages in quran where allah/muhammad says that it's ok to lie to the nonbelievers and even adapt to that society, when in weaker stance.
Which the vast majority of them do, just like the vast majority of Jews and Christians and everyone else.
Well as you can see, religion poisons everything. You see all the muslim countries that don't have years of wars, and yet they still are very unequal and backwards.
Name one African or Middle Eastern country that hasn't experiences on and off warring and political instability for the last 100 years.
Also, Albania is a predominantly Muslim country and while they'v got problem with human rights, they're not much worse than the ones the United States has. All in all, Albania is doing pretty well for itself.
I said that most Muslims don't adhere to half of the rules of their faith. You said that even half was bad. My point is, what if it's the half full of the completely innocuous stuff?
So you're saying that you honestly believe that a majority of Muslims living in the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, and Canada regularly engage in stoning women to death for cheating on their husbands and other such forms of domestic abuse? You think that accurately describes the majority of Muslim communities in the west?
Maybe not. There is just these passages in quran where allah/muhammad says that it's ok to lie to the nonbelievers and even adapt to that society, when in weaker stance.
Look, I doubt you will find a muslim who says that prophet Muhammad was wrong sometimes. Muslim's follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad. And you may or may not know that Muhammad was a murderer of women and children, and speaking of chldren, a husband to 9 year old Aisha.
I see no good in a religion that is dictated, from god aparently, to a man like that. Only a brainwashed individual or a uneducated lunatic would submit to such religion. And you know muslims also believe that the previous revelations from judaism and christianity have been corrupted over time. Quran is the final **** from god. Of course in arabic, just so it would be easier for everyone to access and accept...
It is a wicked religion, no matter how much you pick and choose from it. And you really have to look for things to pick to make it any way civilized.
Says you. What you do or doubt "doubt" is irrelevant. What matters is facts. Back up your claims with actual data, don't just go off of assumptions you've made from your own research.
Muslim's follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad. And you may or may not know that Muhammad was a murderer of women and children, and speaking of chldren, a husband to 9 year old Aisha.
I see no good in a religion that is dictated, from god aparently, to a man like that. Only a brainwashed individual or a uneducated lunatic would submit to such religion. And you know muslims also believe that the previous revelations from judaism and christianity have been corrupted over time. Quran is the final **** from god. Of course in arabic, just so it would be easier for everyone to access and accept...
It is a wicked religion, no matter how much you pick and choose from it. And you really have to look for things to pick to make it any way civilized.
And yet there are millions of adherent Muslims who are just like everybody else and don't beat women and really don't hurt anybody.
I think that matters a lot more than a non-Muslim's personal interpretation of it.
Also, I noticed that you stopped answering my questions. Classy. Let me ask again: Do you honestly believe that the average Muslim is some kind of sleeper agent?
Says you. What you do or doubt "doubt" is irrelevant. What matters is facts. Back up your claims with actual data, don't just go off of assumptions you've made from your own research.
And yet there are millions of adherent Muslims who are just like everybody else and don't beat women and really don't hurt anybody.
I think that matters a lot more than a non-Muslim's personal interpretation of it.
Also, I noticed that you stopped answering my questions. Classy. Let me ask again: Do you honestly believe that the average Muslim is some kind of sleeper agent?
Maybe Spider-Aziz can enlighten us about the true nature of his religion, since i'm pulling this stuff from my ass apparently.
I should be sleeping and getting tired to answer your questions, because it seems you see everything just dandy in islamic countries. No problems there at all doing with the religion itself. And no I don't think average muslim is a sleeper agent. Just that there is a ground for some radical **** and twisted mind just by being a religious person. You don't hear muslims quoting Muhammad about loving one another. There is very little love in quran at all.
No problems there at all doing with the religion itself. And no I don't think average muslim is a sleeper agent. Just that there is a ground for some radical **** and twisted mind just by being a religious person.
That's really not how radicalism and terrorism work. You've got some occasional weirdos like Bin Laden and Vladimir Lenin, who both came from wealth, but they're pretty much universally a reaction to poverty, oppression, and general desperation. You see a lot of Muslim terrorists because a lot of Muslim countries, for reasons that have little to do with the local religion, are incredibly poor and politically unstable.
Look, I doubt you will find a muslim who says that prophet Muhammad was wrong sometimes. Muslim's follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad. And you may or may not know that Muhammad was a murderer of women and children, and speaking of chldren, a husband to 9 year old Aisha.
I see no good in a religion that is dictated, from god aparently, to a man like that. Only a brainwashed individual or a uneducated lunatic would submit to such religion. And you know muslims also believe that the previous revelations from judaism and christianity have been corrupted over time. Quran is the final **** from god. Of course in arabic, just so it would be easier for everyone to access and accept...
It is a wicked religion, no matter how much you pick and choose from it. And you really have to look for things to pick to make it any way civilized.
My problem with Islam basically is the same thing as Mormonism.You have one guy that says "God spoke to me,and you know what?God says that everything we've gone by for over a thousand years is wrong!It's up to me to set the whole thing straight!"
Whenever there is one guy that alone speaks to God and decides to re-write the rule book,a red flag goes up.
My problem with Islam basically is the same thing as Mormonism.You have one guy that says "God spoke to me,and you know what?God says that everything we've gone by for over a thousand years is wrong!It's up to me to set the whole thing straight!"
Whenever there is one guy that alone speaks to God and decides to re-write the rule book,a red flag goes up.
It isn't saying anything sexist at all.It's defining the family hierarchy.As Christ is Head of the Church a man should be head of the family.It's defining roles,but it doesn't mean one is inferior to the other.Christ is under God The Father,but is still equal with God.This should not be difficult to understand.
That argument may work on a spiritual basis but it doesn't hold up well when applied to people. As I've always understood it, Jesus and God are supposed to be the same being, which is how they manage to be both hierarchical and equal. Humans, however, are discrete beings, so you can't say that one has authority over another without the other being somehow inferior in a practical sense.
There's no reason the man should be head of the family, either. A strong-willed woman can easily be the leader.
Given that we believe Paul was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when writing that,I'd say yeah,He's more intelligent.t:
I don't see the problem with this.As Christians we're call to live a life set apart from what unbelievers consider "acceptable behavior."
My issue with the quote was that Paul made a sweeping and offensive generalization about the lifestyle of "Gentiles". I suspect you wouldn't like it if someone were to do the same to Christians.
Neither you or me. But he is the only one advocating that faith here. As a complete sidenote I would just like to say that this quote tagging is a *****.
That's not true at all. I just disagree with you about what the cause is.
That's really not how radicalism and terrorism work. You've got some occasional weirdos like Bin Laden and Vladimir Lenin, who both came from wealth, but they're pretty much universally a reaction to poverty, oppression, and general desperation. You see a lot of Muslim terrorists because a lot of Muslim countries, for reasons that have little to do with the local religion, are incredibly poor and politically unstable.
You got sunni's and shia's fighting in Syria and Irak. Those are religious-based fights. You got people blowing themselves up, because they are promised paradise with 72 virgins. That is entirely religiously based action. You got women covering themselves head to toe without education, entirely religiously justified. So we just have to agree to disagree about the occasionality and rationality of some weirdos. ALSO the original topic of this thread, creationism, is entirely religiously based nonsense!
I do.
[YT]3C8V7hqv3AE[/YT]
[YT]hMUywof_W50[/YT]
[YT]etnvZuIKOvQ[/YT]
[YT]Mr-lJK494qY[/YT]
[YT]Hfu9jTiERDI[/YT]
Maybe the problem isn't that they're not saying it. Maybe the problem is that you're not listening.
You got some muslim scholars there, who live in america. Do they really have much listeners outside the causy borders of U.S.?
I simpy cannot understand these women who choose this religion, as one of the women on the video you posted. But of course it's safer to practice it in U.S. where they have to aby the laws of the country. And even then there are restriction to this "practical" religion:
1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as wife and mother.
2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husband’s consent is required in order to eliminate later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her guardian’s consent.
3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behavior should follow Islamic guidelines. These include: restraining her glances in relation to any men near the work place, wearing correct Islamic dress, avoiding men, not walking in a provocative manner, and not using make-up or perfume in public.
4. Her job should not be one which causes moral corruption in society, or involve any prohibited trade or activity, affect her own religion, morals, dignity and good behavior, or subject her to temptations.
5. Her job should not be one which is mixing and associating with men.
6. A woman should try to seek employment in positions which require a woman’s special skills, or which relate to the needs of women and children, such as teaching, nursing other women, midwifery, medicine with specialization’s like pediatric or obstetrics-gynecology.
What is wrong with you nouan? Your understanding is not half-@$$ed, it's full throttle @$$
And where did you bring rape from? GAH, your understanding is awful, you have no clue what you're talking about
You complain about something, and ignore other stuff, quit debating, you have no clue what you are talking about, The Question pointed many of your mistakes, and you keep ranting
Did you read anything about the mercy? Compassion? Do you know what historical event is to what? Rules for what? No, you have almost ZERO comprehension, get a better understanding, good understanding, then start talking
My problem with Islam basically is the same thing as Mormonism.You have one guy that says "God spoke to me,and you know what?God says that everything we've gone by for over a thousand years is wrong!It's up to me to set the whole thing straight!"
Whenever there is one guy that alone speaks to God and decides to re-write the rule book,a red flag goes up.
The messenger was in a community of people worshiping stone statues, statues made from dates (and eating them at hunger) made on dead people, burying girls alive (then was the time women were treated unfairly, Islam changed that), and they kept that for generations before the days of Muhammad coming to them and sending the message, what they do is wrong
That's not unique to Islam and you see a lot more of that in pretty much every country that's poor and war torn. You see a lot of that stuff between the Catholics and the Voodoo practitioners. You saw that in Ireland with the Protestants and the Catholics. Religious tribalism is a bad thing, but it usually only gets violent when the flames are fanned by poverty, desperation, and anger. You'll find that Sunnis and Shias get along just fine in first world countries. There's a causal relationship there.
That's actually not especially true. The "72 virgins" thing comes from a Hadith (that is, a second hand account of the Prophet's teachings) and not the Quran. Hadiths aren't all held to be valid and divine word because they're all second hand, and the further they are from the source then the less seriously most Muslims take them. This particular Hadith goes:
"It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a."
Because it's, like, three degrees of separation from Muhammad, most Muslims don't take it very seriously. Also, there's a lot of debate as to wether or not you can even translate "houri" to mean "virgin."
The whole 72 virgins thing started as propaganda to de-emphasize the terrorists' political motivations for what they do.
I simpy cannot understand these women who choose this religion, as one of the women on the video you posted. But of course it's safer to practice it in U.S. where they have to aby the laws of the country. And even then there are restriction to this "practical" religion:
1. Outside employment should not come before, or seriously interfere with her responsibilities as wife and mother.
2. Her work should not be a source of friction within the family, and the husbands consent is required in order to eliminate later disagreements. If she is not married, she must have her guardians consent.
3. Her appearance, manner and tone of speech and overall behavior should follow Islamic guidelines. These include: restraining her glances in relation to any men near the work place, wearing correct Islamic dress, avoiding men, not walking in a provocative manner, and not using make-up or perfume in public.
4. Her job should not be one which causes moral corruption in society, or involve any prohibited trade or activity, affect her own religion, morals, dignity and good behavior, or subject her to temptations.
5. Her job should not be one which is mixing and associating with men.
6. A woman should try to seek employment in positions which require a womans special skills, or which relate to the needs of women and children, such as teaching, nursing other women, midwifery, medicine with specializations like pediatric or obstetrics-gynecology.
I expected somebody would try to equate Christ to Muhammad or whatever,but the fact is Christ came to fulfill prophesy.He also had witnesses who announce His coming. (John the Baptist,The Wise Men,) That can't be said of any others.
I expected somebody would try to equate Christ to Muhammad or whatever,but the fact is Christ came to fulfill prophesy.He also had witnesses who announce His coming. (John the Baptist,The Wise Men,) That can't be said of any others.
That argument may work on a spiritual basis but it doesn't hold up well when applied to people. As I've always understood it, Jesus and God are supposed to be the same being, which is how they manage to be both hierarchical and equal. Humans, however, are discrete beings, so you can't say that one has authority over another without the other being somehow inferior in a practical sense.
My issue with the quote was that Paul made a sweeping and offensive generalization about the lifestyle of "Gentiles". I suspect you wouldn't like it if someone were to do the same to Christians.
I suppose I'm used to it since it happens to us more often,but it's not like it's such an outrageous statement,when you consider the protection of the Eternal Soul is the intent.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
t:
