| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Matt" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2008 11:31:09 PM |
| Object: |
Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, Kangarooistan <kangarooistan@gmail.com> wrote:
Let us examine the Holy record of the Prophet Mohammed and his darling
bride, Aisha (Peace Be Upon Them Both):
SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 7, Number 88: Narrated 'Ursa: Mohammed (p.b.u.h.)
The Prophet (when He was 53 years old) wrote the marriage contract with
'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her
while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years
(i.e. till his death).
Now, you may be wondering "Why did Mohammed marry Aisha when she was
only 6 and then wait until she was 9 to have sexual intercourse?" - Lets
go to the wisdom of the Shi'a Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini defined the
following limits and consequences for adult sexual activity with
children (roughly translated from Arabic):
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl
is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from
having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, while other sexual
acts such as foreplay, rubbing, and kissing are allowed. A man having
intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed
a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged.
If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for
her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four
permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children
Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
An English translation of this wonderful work can be purchased on
Amazon.com:
Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophic, Social and
Religious with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number 0-
553-14032-9
http://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Ayatollah-Khomeini-Political-
Philosophical/dp/0553140329/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200375019
&sr=8-9
.
|
|
| User: "B J Foster" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
27 Jan 2008 07:26:51 AM |
|
|
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4799d41c$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:479885a6$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip]
NO BISHOP ACTING REASONABLE COULD HAVE REACHED THE DECISION TO
CONTIONUE
A KNOWN PAEDOPHILE IN THE MINISTRY
Actually that is a DIFFERENT point! The point is NO BISHOP ever stated a
minister doing such things to children was doing something acceptable
unlike
islam which states it is acceptable. And th point has been dealt with
already. In the Catholic Church fifty years ago they thought that moving
a
repentant cleric would stop the abuse. They were wrong! they admitted
they
were wrong! but they NEVER stated such abuse was acceptable.
Give me a break! He was aware that Guy was a repeat offender,
Yes.
therefore
he was aware that not sacking him would result in further abuse and
suffering.
Does not follow. christ was aware that both of the people crusified nest to
him were repeat offenders. criminals. thieves. Does not mean that both of
them were past redemption does it?
Guy had over 80 victims. At what number would it be reasonable for
Hollingworth to conclude that Guy was a repeat offender?
100?
500?
He was absolutely aware that it was not an isolated offence.
Like a thief who constantly robs?
Not at all. Anyone who invests the slightest effort into researching
child abuse knows that pederasty is incurable.
Why does the church attract such people? Not only the pederasts, but
also the ladder-climbing protect-the-church-and-stuff-the-kids types.
Well the answer to that is easy. In th past the church was authoritarian and
involved in things e.g. teaching which brought people into contact with
children. this is NOT just the reserve of the church and a similar pattern
can be seen of sports coaches dance teachers playground supervisors I am
sure.
How sure are you? Do you have evidence?
I can tell you that I have researched this area quite thoroughly, so
you'd better be sure you not just speculating.
For example, the incidence amongst Baptists us the same yet it is
significantly lower amognths Presbryerians or Lutherans. Anyone know why?
But you prompt me to ask YOU a question. I ask it because of the experience
of a professional who works in this area.
suppose a child is sexually abused.
Do you feel sorry for this victim?
do you feel sorry that his emotional development is hampreed because of
abuse?
Of course
Do you then feel sorry if he reaches puberty and is still emotionally
underdeveloped? that he can't establish emotional or sexual relationships
with other teenagers or young adults?
niow this enotionally arrested person abused another child. Do you then
stop having sympathy for them and sudenly see them as a evil criminal?
when people chose to do evil acts do yo cut yourself off form them entirely?
Are they beyond redemption?
Your duty of care as a priest (as a bishop), means that the very *least*
you will do is remove this person from a position of power and control
over children.
Corporate execs have morals because they are accountable to
shareholders. Politicians ultimately have to face the electorate.
Who holds the Ayatollah Khomeini accountable?
Depends on whether you believe or not. If you do ultimately corporate
political or religious leadres are ultimately accountable to THEMSELVES when
they stand in front of God and can't lie!
It has SFA to do with whether you believe.
Rule-of-law means that *he* had better believe, or he gets locked up.
Don't tell me anyone is ultimately accountable to God. Pederasts are
sociopaths, they have no empathy for fellow human beings and there's a
good chance they don't believe in God either. So spinning your usual
tale of hellfire and damnation will not help the kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
27 Jan 2008 10:05:20 AM |
|
|
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:479c86bc$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4799d41c$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:479885a6$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip]
NO BISHOP ACTING REASONABLE COULD HAVE REACHED THE DECISION TO
CONTIONUE
A KNOWN PAEDOPHILE IN THE MINISTRY
Actually that is a DIFFERENT point! The point is NO BISHOP ever stated
a
minister doing such things to children was doing something acceptable
unlike
islam which states it is acceptable. And th point has been dealt with
already. In the Catholic Church fifty years ago they thought that
moving
a
repentant cleric would stop the abuse. They were wrong! they admitted
they
were wrong! but they NEVER stated such abuse was acceptable.
Give me a break! He was aware that Guy was a repeat offender,
Yes.
therefore
he was aware that not sacking him would result in further abuse and
suffering.
Does not follow. christ was aware that both of the people crusified nest
to
him were repeat offenders. criminals. thieves. Does not mean that both
of
them were past redemption does it?
Guy had over 80 victims. At what number would it be reasonable for
Hollingworth to conclude that Guy was a repeat offender?
100?
500?
You are assuming recividists are beyond redemption. they aren't! nobody is!
It isn't for you to judge.
also:
http://quasipundit.blogspot.com/2002_04_28_archive.html
The CMR findings also reveal:
.. Most church child-sexual-abuse cases involve a single victim.
.. Law suits or out-of-court settlements were a result in 21 percent of the
allegations reported in the 2000 survey.
.. Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers.
Perhaps more startling, children at churches are accused of sexual abuse as
often as are clergy and staff. In 1999, for example, 42 percent of alleged
child abusers were volunteers - about 25 percent were paid staff members
(including clergy) and 25 percent were other children.
He was absolutely aware that it was not an isolated offence.
Like a thief who constantly robs?
Not at all. Anyone who invests the slightest effort into researching
child abuse knows that pederasty is incurable.
So you are saying child abusers will always abuse children if given the
opportunity but thievs will NOT always rob or wife beaters may one day stop?
What research says that child abuse is the only crime in the world for
which the offender will never stop abusing given the opportunity?
Why does the church attract such people? Not only the pederasts, but
also the ladder-climbing protect-the-church-and-stuff-the-kids types.
Well the answer to that is easy. In th past the church was authoritarian
and
involved in things e.g. teaching which brought people into contact with
children. this is NOT just the reserve of the church and a similar
pattern
can be seen of sports coaches dance teachers playground supervisors I am
sure.
How sure are you? Do you have evidence?
Yes.
I can tell you that I have researched this area quite thoroughly, so
you'd better be sure you not just speculating.
Oh im not and your "argument from authority" isn't really changing anything.
The national swimming coach of the irish olympic team springs to mind.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oTaQPSjSlfEC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=percent+pe
dophiles+in+population&source=web&ots=3qxlBJzre9&sig=Fi4D5x7ju1DKDOesF0cUPUV
-zQQ
See above: Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abuser
For example, the incidence amongst Baptists us the same yet it is
significantly lower among Presbryerians or Lutherans. Anyone know why?
See above CSM: Since 1993, on average about 1 percent of the surveyed
churches reported abuse allegations annually. That means on average, about
3,500 allegations annually, or nearly 70 per among the predominantly
Protestant group, Cobble says.
But you prompt me to ask YOU a question. I ask it because of the
experience
of a professional who works in this area.
suppose a child is sexually abused.
Do you feel sorry for this victim?
do you feel sorry that his emotional development is hampreed because of
abuse?
Of course
Do you then feel sorry if he reaches puberty and is still emotionally
underdeveloped? that he can't establish emotional or sexual
relationships
with other teenagers or young adults?
niow this enotionally arrested person abused another child. Do you then
stop having sympathy for them and sudenly see them as a evil criminal?
when people chose to do evil acts do yo cut yourself off form them
entirely?
Are they beyond redemption?
Your duty of care as a priest (as a bishop), means that the very *least*
you will do is remove this person from a position of power and control
over children.
I didnt ask you that! i asked "Are they beyond redemption?"
it seems to me you believe they are incurable.
Corporate execs have morals because they are accountable to
shareholders. Politicians ultimately have to face the electorate.
Who holds the Ayatollah Khomeini accountable?
Depends on whether you believe or not. If you do ultimately corporate
political or religious leadres are ultimately accountable to THEMSELVES
when
they stand in front of God and can't lie!
It has SFA to do with whether you believe.
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with it! If you believe in the Last
Judgement!
Rule-of-law means that *he* had better believe, or he gets locked up.
In fact many people have thwarted the law or avoided prosecution or arrest
throughout history. But for people who believe that art the end of time ther
is a last judgement then there is no way to avoid it!
Don't tell me anyone is ultimately accountable to God.
to people who believe it everybody is!
Pederasts are
sociopaths, they have no empathy for fellow human beings and there's a
good chance they don't believe in God either.
that makes no difference to people who believe in God. Not believing wont
change being judged to them.
So spinning your usual
tale of hellfire and damnation will not help the kids.
the question was not about how to help kids. the question was who judges the
offender. and i asnwered it depends on whether or not you believe in god. If
you do believe ultimately they judge themselves in the presence of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
28 Jan 2008 12:41:52 AM |
|
|
In article <edcd3$479cb4a5$4f61217c$15620@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
You are assuming recividists are beyond redemption. they aren't! nobody is!
It isn't for you to judge.
Actually it was Hollingsworth's role to judge what was best for his
organisation and its clients. He decided to leave a known pedophile in a
position where he could abuse children. Its our role to judge
Hollingsworth's fitness for a leadership position given that decision.
As to the pedophile, there are many roles in which he could have served
that did not bring him into contact with children. That way recidivism
wouldn't have been a risk.
Hollingsworth's decision placed children at elevated risk of attack.
There are many places other than leadership he can serve.
Both await the ultimate judgement.
I doubt either is looking forward to it.
--
DM
Eristic extraordinaire
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
28 Jan 2008 06:07:58 AM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2208162abc859c0d98b0b9@news.bigpond.com...
In article <edcd3$479cb4a5$4f61217c$15620@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
You are assuming recividists are beyond redemption. they aren't! nobody
is!
It isn't for you to judge.
Actually it was Hollingsworth's role to judge what was best for his
organisation and its clients. He decided to leave a known pedophile in a
position where he could abuse children. Its our role to judge
Hollingsworth's fitness for a leadership position given that decision.
THis second point much is true to some extent . But nmot trought trial by
media but by vox Populi. I don't think you are a member of his congregation
however are you? there fore it is NOT for YOU to judge!
As to the pedophile, there are many roles in which he could have served
that did not bring him into contact with children. That way recidivism
wouldn't have been a risk.
I assume that is what would be done today.
Hollingsworth's decision placed children at elevated risk of attack.
There are many places other than leadership he can serve.
Yes. I agree. If he did so in the light of current knowledge.
Both await the ultimate judgement.
I doubt either is looking forward to it.
I dont know and wont speculate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B J Foster" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
27 Jan 2008 05:08:09 PM |
|
|
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:479c86bc$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4799d41c$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mavisbeacon wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:479885a6$0$4471$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip]
NO BISHOP ACTING REASONABLE COULD HAVE REACHED THE DECISION TO
CONTIONUE
A KNOWN PAEDOPHILE IN THE MINISTRY
Actually that is a DIFFERENT point! The point is NO BISHOP ever stated
a
minister doing such things to children was doing something acceptable
unlike
islam which states it is acceptable. And th point has been dealt with
already. In the Catholic Church fifty years ago they thought that
moving
a
repentant cleric would stop the abuse. They were wrong! they admitted
they
were wrong! but they NEVER stated such abuse was acceptable.
Give me a break! He was aware that Guy was a repeat offender,
Yes.
therefore
he was aware that not sacking him would result in further abuse and
suffering.
Does not follow. christ was aware that both of the people crusified nest
to
him were repeat offenders. criminals. thieves. Does not mean that both
of
them were past redemption does it?
Guy had over 80 victims. At what number would it be reasonable for
Hollingworth to conclude that Guy was a repeat offender?
100?
500?
You are assuming recividists are beyond redemption. they aren't! nobody is!
It isn't for you to judge.
*****. I judge that they are animals.
also:
http://quasipundit.blogspot.com/2002_04_28_archive.html
The CMR findings also reveal:
. Most church child-sexual-abuse cases involve a single victim.
Because the other victims have suffered enough abuse already, and judge
that if someone brings down the priest then they can stay out of it.
. Law suits or out-of-court settlements were a result in 21 percent of the
allegations reported in the 2000 survey.
Yes, the RC church trying to limit liability by keeping it quiet.
http://cagle.com/news/PedophilePriests/pedophilePriests/wasserman.gif
. Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers.
Perhaps more startling, children at churches are accused of sexual abuse as
often as are clergy and staff. In 1999, for example, 42 percent of alleged
child abusers were volunteers - about 25 percent were paid staff members
(including clergy) and 25 percent were other children.
That's logical, the other kids are playing "follow my leader"
He was absolutely aware that it was not an isolated offence.
Like a thief who constantly robs?
Not at all. Anyone who invests the slightest effort into researching
child abuse knows that pederasty is incurable.
So you are saying child abusers will always abuse children if given the
opportunity but thievs will NOT always rob or wife beaters may one day stop?
What research says that child abuse is the only crime in the world for
which the offender will never stop abusing given the opportunity?
You are trying to be willfully thick.
Opportunity is only one factor causing crime. Paedophiles cannot be
rehabilitated, thieves can and murder (crimes of passion) is almost
never a repeat crime. These are facts about criminology which even
laymen understand - but apparently the Bishop of Brisbane didn't take
the trouble to find out, or he willfully ignored it, "hoping" or maybe
praying that the situation would correct itself.
It never does. Paedophilia is incurable.
But even that's not the point - the question is why the Bishop of
Brisbane (and thousands of his peers) sent the paedophile *back* into a
situation where he could exercise power and control over innocent kids.
And this pattern has repeated around the world for decades.
Why does the church attract such people? Not only the pederasts, but
also the ladder-climbing protect-the-church-and-stuff-the-kids types.
Well the answer to that is easy. In th past the church was authoritarian
and
involved in things e.g. teaching which brought people into contact with
children. this is NOT just the reserve of the church and a similar
pattern
can be seen of sports coaches dance teachers playground supervisors I am
sure.
How sure are you? Do you have evidence?
Yes.
Like this?
"AIDS rate higher among Catholic priests - Brief Article
Christian Century, March 1, 2000"
Four time the rate, to be precise.
I can tell you that I have researched this area quite thoroughly, so
you'd better be sure you not just speculating.
Oh im not and your "argument from authority" isn't really changing anything.
The national swimming coach of the irish olympic team springs to mind.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oTaQPSjSlfEC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=percent+pe
dophiles+in+population&source=web&ots=3qxlBJzre9&sig=Fi4D5x7ju1DKDOesF0cUPUV
-zQQ
Wot, are you claiming that I'm arguing that pederasts don't exist in
other parts of the community? Pathetic.
They are attracted to *any* occupation (I deliberately refrain from
using the word 'profession') where there is an opportunity to abuse
kids, and the RC church creates ideal conditions because the church
leadership continually sweeps it under the carpet.
In the same way, slavery goes on in Iran because the mullahs condone it
or pretend that it doesn't happen.
This was my starting point - the lack of accountability creates
conditions conducive to paedophilia. Who is more responsible, the
leadership or the paedophiles themselves?
On the one hand we have the paedophiles - sociopaths usually, who have
no empathy for other humans and simply seek conditions in which to prey
on victims. To forgive these 'people' is ridiculous because they simply
take the opportunity to reoffend.
On the other hand, we have people who dedicate their lives to God and
who probably genuinely believe that by forgiving the offenders and
praying for the victims that things will right themselves. Well, the
evidence is that they don't and the effect is that suffering of children
is multiplied many times over by the passive inaction of the leadership.
See above: Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abuser
For example, the incidence amongst Baptists us the same yet it is
significantly lower among Presbryerians or Lutherans. Anyone know why?
See above CSM: Since 1993, on average about 1 percent of the surveyed
churches reported abuse allegations annually. That means on average, about
3,500 allegations annually, or nearly 70 per among the predominantly
Protestant group, Cobble says.
Wot, are you trying to claim that protestants are worse?
You haven't even begun to study the problem. Many if not most people
think it is caused by celibacy, but the evidence shows that the
incidence of child abuse is the *same* amongst Baptists.
"it is wrong to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Most homosexuals
are not attracted to children"
(Richard Sipe, psychotherapist & former priest, author of 'Sex, Priests,
and Secret Codes')
But you prompt me to ask YOU a question. I ask it because of the
experience
of a professional who works in this area.
suppose a child is sexually abused.
Do you feel sorry for this victim?
do you feel sorry that his emotional development is hampreed because of
abuse?
Of course
Do you then feel sorry if he reaches puberty and is still emotionally
underdeveloped? that he can't establish emotional or sexual
relationships
with other teenagers or young adults?
niow this enotionally arrested person abused another child. Do you then
stop having sympathy for them and sudenly see them as a evil criminal?
when people chose to do evil acts do yo cut yourself off form them
entirely?
Are they beyond redemption?
Your duty of care as a priest (as a bishop), means that the very *least*
you will do is remove this person from a position of power and control
over children.
I didnt ask you that! i asked "Are they beyond redemption?"
This is an internal matter for the church.
I have explained clearly that civilised society has laws against
paedophilia (in contrast to scripture, which has none). Under our laws,
there is no redemption - if you get caught you go to jail for life.
We are extremely annoyed that the church does not follow what Jesus
taught us ("to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's") and persist in
concealing serious crimes (as some Bishops do) from the police.
I can also assure you that if church leadership does not take serious
steps to solve the problem, when the community finally gets wind of the
scale and severity of the problem, then they will remove themselves from
church. From that point, you can talk about redemption all you like, but
the church will have lost it's power and significance so that quaint
ideas like forgiveness for (incurable) diseases will be academic.
Against this background, the claim that Muslims believe in paedophilia
is a joke. I mean, we're looking at up to 25% of Christian boys being
abused and you want to point the finger at something that happened 800
years ago? ROTFL
it seems to me you believe they are incurable.
Corporate execs have morals because they are accountable to
shareholders. Politicians ultimately have to face the electorate.
Who holds the Ayatollah Khomeini accountable?
Depends on whether you believe or not. If you do ultimately corporate
political or religious leadres are ultimately accountable to THEMSELVES
when
they stand in front of God and can't lie!
It has SFA to do with whether you believe.
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with it! If you believe in the Last
Judgement!
Garbage. I can't wait for the last judgement, particularly for some of
these people:
http://www.cephas-library.com/baptists_youth_pastor_illicit_sex.html
But *you* people need to get into your heads that while you *go* *on*
forgiving these animals they *go* *on* abusing young kids.
And *you* will be judged on what you did, if anything, to stop abuse of
kids.
Rule-of-law means that *he* had better believe, or he gets locked up.
In fact many people have thwarted the law or avoided prosecution or arrest
throughout history. But for people who believe that art the end of time ther
is a last judgement then there is no way to avoid it!
Another flaw in your argument: What about those who don't believe?
Don't tell me anyone is ultimately accountable to God.
to people who believe it everybody is!
And in particular, the pederasts. Psychologists tell us that these
people are sociopaths. This is inconsistent with people who believe in
Christ's teachings. If follows that they don't believe in the judgement
day and will continue abusing kids in the context of a WEAK SYSTEM WHICH
LETS THEM OFF THE HOOK ALL THE TIME.
Pederasts are
sociopaths, they have no empathy for fellow human beings and there's a
good chance they don't believe in God either.
that makes no difference to people who believe in God. Not believing wont
change being judged to them.
1. Believing in it doesn't mean that it exists
2. Even if it does exist, church policy is such that many more people
get abused than would be the case if the HANDED CRIMINALS OVER TO THE
POLICE.
So spinning your usual
tale of hellfire and damnation will not help the kids.
the question was not about how to help kids. the question was who judges the
offender. and i asnwered it depends on whether or not you believe in god. If
you do believe ultimately they judge themselves in the presence of God.
Mumbo jumbo.
In the meantime, the abuse continues.
Worse, the victims themselves become offenders, SO YOUR SIN OF FORGIVING
THEM AMPLIES THE PROBLEM.
Is this the legacy of the church? Breeding ground for abuse? better
start packing it up soon, because here in secular society we have laws
and you too must obey them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
21 Jan 2008 08:01:43 PM |
|
|
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21ffdf797298958c98b053@news.bigpond.com:
In article <6dd5$4794f4b6$4f61217c$24156@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21ff1257d2101d9998b046@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2BAC5BC7FCDmattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fe6fca6667f88d98b033@news.bigpond.com:
In article <c4489$47935ba8$4f61217c$26686@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
You are talking shite! Theology isnt voted on by adherents.
They dont decide that the body of Christ isnt the body of
Christ! It is dogma!
Dogma is not reality. Bread does not change into human flesh
when it touches the mouth of an adherent. Every single one of
them knows this to be true, despite what they say in the
litany.
Similarly the Pope might say "thou shalt not use
contraception", but millions of his adherents use contraception
nevertheless.
The Ayatollah Khomeini might say "sex with nine year olds is
OK", but Muslims decide for themselves as individuals whether
or not this is true. In Iran they clearly think it isn't
because they have set a minimum age of consent at 12, with a
strong push to make it 16.
You have it backwards, legally they dont need consent (of the
father)
after
age 13, before age 13 - say at age 7 - they can get married with
consent
of
the father.
*And* a properly constituted court.
Can you cite any example where a 7 year old has been married in
Iran since these requirements were enacted?
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm
In Iran as of June 2002 it is legal for a 9 year old girl to marry
with her parents' permission. Voices Behind the Veil p.136-137
In the Ivory Coast this book also tells of a 12 year old girl who
would leave the house for hours before returning home. After her
father tied her up, burned her back with a piece of iron, locked her
up for three days with no food, he eventually married her of to a
40-year old man. He never sent her to school because he said that it
would drive them from their tradition, they would start asking
questions, and not want to marry until they are 19 or 20.
The Taliban encouraged families to marry off their daughters as young
as eight years old. (Voices Behind the Veil p.110)
The Dallas Morning News 9/28/03 p.1,10S had a story about the sad
plight of Muslim Nigerian girls who were married very young, got
pregnant and had labor before their small bodies were ready. It was
actually somewhat of a gross story, basically of many girls who
needed C-sections but did not get them. Many survived, but could not
have any children due to their perforated uteruses.
Posting anecdotes about the marriage of young girls in third world
countries is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do that. Do
you want me to start posting up a reference to a non-Muslim early
marriage for each Muslim reference you post?
The grim fact is that very early marriage is usually a symptom of
poverty, not religion. It is easy to find instances if you look. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, for instance, 29% of girls are
married by age 18. Propagandists can select instances to suit their
purpose, but treating early marriage as a purely religious problem
misses the real issue.
The purpose of the original poster of this thread was not to discuss
early marriage, but to foment hatred against Islam. Don't fall into
the trap of assisting an obvious propagandist in this endeavour.
Over 15% if Iranian girls are married before age 14.
BTW what's wrong with hatred? Why, in the liberal mind, has the word
"hate" become a bad word? I hate the way women and little girls are
treadted under Islamic law, and I also hate the way suicide bombers go
arould blowing up unarmed, defenseless people including children. I hate
Islam.
Are you saying you don't hate anything? (Besides bigots? :P)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
22 Jan 2008 02:17:07 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A2CC1A5A5F5Amattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21ffdf797298958c98b053@news.bigpond.com:
In article <6dd5$4794f4b6$4f61217c$24156@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21ff1257d2101d9998b046@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2BAC5BC7FCDmattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fe6fca6667f88d98b033@news.bigpond.com:
In article <c4489$47935ba8$4f61217c$26686@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
You are talking shite! Theology isnt voted on by adherents.
They dont decide that the body of Christ isnt the body of
Christ! It is dogma!
Dogma is not reality. Bread does not change into human flesh
when it touches the mouth of an adherent. Every single one of
them knows this to be true, despite what they say in the
litany.
Similarly the Pope might say "thou shalt not use
contraception", but millions of his adherents use contraception
nevertheless.
The Ayatollah Khomeini might say "sex with nine year olds is
OK", but Muslims decide for themselves as individuals whether
or not this is true. In Iran they clearly think it isn't
because they have set a minimum age of consent at 12, with a
strong push to make it 16.
You have it backwards, legally they dont need consent (of the
father)
after
age 13, before age 13 - say at age 7 - they can get married with
consent
of
the father.
*And* a properly constituted court.
Can you cite any example where a 7 year old has been married in
Iran since these requirements were enacted?
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm
In Iran as of June 2002 it is legal for a 9 year old girl to marry
with her parents' permission. Voices Behind the Veil p.136-137
In the Ivory Coast this book also tells of a 12 year old girl who
would leave the house for hours before returning home. After her
father tied her up, burned her back with a piece of iron, locked her
up for three days with no food, he eventually married her of to a
40-year old man. He never sent her to school because he said that it
would drive them from their tradition, they would start asking
questions, and not want to marry until they are 19 or 20.
The Taliban encouraged families to marry off their daughters as young
as eight years old. (Voices Behind the Veil p.110)
The Dallas Morning News 9/28/03 p.1,10S had a story about the sad
plight of Muslim Nigerian girls who were married very young, got
pregnant and had labor before their small bodies were ready. It was
actually somewhat of a gross story, basically of many girls who
needed C-sections but did not get them. Many survived, but could not
have any children due to their perforated uteruses.
Posting anecdotes about the marriage of young girls in third world
countries is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do that. Do
you want me to start posting up a reference to a non-Muslim early
marriage for each Muslim reference you post?
The grim fact is that very early marriage is usually a symptom of
poverty, not religion. It is easy to find instances if you look. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, for instance, 29% of girls are
married by age 18. Propagandists can select instances to suit their
purpose, but treating early marriage as a purely religious problem
misses the real issue.
The purpose of the original poster of this thread was not to discuss
early marriage, but to foment hatred against Islam. Don't fall into
the trap of assisting an obvious propagandist in this endeavour.
Over 15% if Iranian girls are married before age 14.
Shifting the goalposts now Matt?
Why not just admit the Iranians no l;onger consider nine an appropriate
age to be married and have sex?
BTW what's wrong with hatred?
Nothing. Its one of a whole range of human emotions. Fomenting hatred,
thats another matter altogether.
Why, in the liberal mind, has the word
"hate" become a bad word? I hate the way women and little girls are
treadted under Islamic law, and I also hate the way suicide bombers go
arould blowing up unarmed, defenseless people including children. I hate
Islam.
Do you also hate the way US citizens go around bombing defenceless
people, including women and children, using high tech missiles? I can't
remember seeing you posting articles fomenting hatred against Americans
for their murderous ways.
Are you saying you don't hate anything? (Besides bigots? :P)
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among others
is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal, if extreme
human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
22 Jan 2008 07:41:25 AM |
|
|
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.2200437eb4b70e7a98b05d@news.bigpond.com:
In article <Xns9A2CC1A5A5F5Amattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21ffdf797298958c98b053@news.bigpond.com:
In article <6dd5$4794f4b6$4f61217c$24156@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.21ff1257d2101d9998b046@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2BAC5BC7FCDmattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
David Moss <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in
news:MPG.21fe6fca6667f88d98b033@news.bigpond.com:
In article <c4489$47935ba8$4f61217c$26686@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
You are talking shite! Theology isnt voted on by adherents.
They dont decide that the body of Christ isnt the body of
Christ! It is dogma!
Dogma is not reality. Bread does not change into human flesh
when it touches the mouth of an adherent. Every single one
of them knows this to be true, despite what they say in the
litany.
Similarly the Pope might say "thou shalt not use
contraception", but millions of his adherents use
contraception nevertheless.
The Ayatollah Khomeini might say "sex with nine year olds is
OK", but Muslims decide for themselves as individuals
whether or not this is true. In Iran they clearly think it
isn't because they have set a minimum age of consent at 12,
with a strong push to make it 16.
You have it backwards, legally they dont need consent (of the
father)
after
age 13, before age 13 - say at age 7 - they can get married
with consent
of
the father.
*And* a properly constituted court.
Can you cite any example where a 7 year old has been married in
Iran since these requirements were enacted?
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm
In Iran as of June 2002 it is legal for a 9 year old girl to marry
with her parents' permission. Voices Behind the Veil p.136-137
In the Ivory Coast this book also tells of a 12 year old girl who
would leave the house for hours before returning home. After her
father tied her up, burned her back with a piece of iron, locked
her up for three days with no food, he eventually married her of
to a 40-year old man. He never sent her to school because he said
that it would drive them from their tradition, they would start
asking questions, and not want to marry until they are 19 or 20.
The Taliban encouraged families to marry off their daughters as
young as eight years old. (Voices Behind the Veil p.110)
The Dallas Morning News 9/28/03 p.1,10S had a story about the sad
plight of Muslim Nigerian girls who were married very young, got
pregnant and had labor before their small bodies were ready. It
was actually somewhat of a gross story, basically of many girls
who needed C-sections but did not get them. Many survived, but
could not have any children due to their perforated uteruses.
Posting anecdotes about the marriage of young girls in third world
countries is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do that.
Do you want me to start posting up a reference to a non-Muslim
early marriage for each Muslim reference you post?
The grim fact is that very early marriage is usually a symptom of
poverty, not religion. It is easy to find instances if you look. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, for instance, 29% of girls are
married by age 18. Propagandists can select instances to suit their
purpose, but treating early marriage as a purely religious problem
misses the real issue.
The purpose of the original poster of this thread was not to
discuss early marriage, but to foment hatred against Islam. Don't
fall into the trap of assisting an obvious propagandist in this
endeavour.
Over 15% if Iranian girls are married before age 14.
Shifting the goalposts now Matt?
Why not just admit the Iranians no l;onger consider nine an
appropriate age to be married and have sex?
BTW what's wrong with hatred?
Nothing. Its one of a whole range of human emotions. Fomenting hatred,
thats another matter altogether.
Why, in the liberal mind, has the word
"hate" become a bad word? I hate the way women and little girls are
treadted under Islamic law, and I also hate the way suicide bombers
go arould blowing up unarmed, defenseless people including children.
I hate Islam.
Do you also hate the way US citizens go around bombing defenceless
people, including women and children, using high tech missiles? I
can't remember seeing you posting articles fomenting hatred against
Americans for their murderous ways.
I do not believe Americans specifically target innocent civilians, women
and children as Mulsims typically do. Are you saying war is never
justified? The realities of war are that innocent people do die, but
there is a difference between between those who specifically target
civilians and those who do not.
Are you saying you don't hate anything? (Besides bigots? :P)
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among
others is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal, if
extreme human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
So your solution to what you see as cowardly sociopathic acts of
formenting hatrid against an ideology like Islam, is to forment hatred
against Jews, Christians, Americans etc etc... Your logic seems a bit
flawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
22 Jan 2008 08:20:24 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A2D442593662mattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among
others is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal, if
extreme human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
So your solution to what you see as cowardly sociopathic acts of
formenting hatrid against an ideology like Islam, is to forment hatred
against Jews, Christians, Americans etc etc... Your logic seems a bit
flawed.
No, my solution is to point out what these sociopaths are up to. One of
the ways I do this is to ask if they are interested in the specific act
they post about, or are they only interested in vilifying the group they
target. If they claim to be interested in the act and not in vilifying
the group, I ask why they are not posting articles about similar acts by
other groups. If they claim there are no similar acts to report, I
provide some. This tactic usually reduces the average neo-Nazi
propagandist footsoldier to foamy-mouthed ranting.
With you however, I achieved an admission that you are primarily
interested in vilifying Muslims. An unusual outcome, but just as
satisfying nevertheless.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
22 Jan 2008 02:51:02 PM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220098a085f67ae698b065@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2D442593662mattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among
others is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal, if
extreme human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
So your solution to what you see as cowardly sociopathic acts of
formenting hatrid against an ideology like Islam, is to forment hatred
against Jews, Christians, Americans etc etc... Your logic seems a bit
flawed.
No, my solution is to point out what these sociopaths are up to. One of
the ways I do this is to ask if they are interested in the specific act
they post about, or are they only interested in vilifying the group they
target. If they claim to be interested in the act and not in vilifying
the group, I ask why they are not posting articles about similar acts by
other groups. If they claim there are no similar acts to report, I
provide some. This tactic usually reduces the average neo-Nazi
propagandist footsoldier to foamy-mouthed ranting.
Ther are no similar policies of any other church! No other church depicts
sex with a nine year old as acceptable as far as I know. Certainly
christianity does NOT!
so again I ask you do you accept that Islam depicts the main prophet in his
fifties as having sex with a nine year old and Christianity does NOT depict
such a thing. furthermore do you accept that Islamic scholars and clerics
have endorces such sex and christian tradition scholars and clerics have
condemned such acts?
With you however, I achieved an admission that you are primarily
interested in vilifying Muslims. An unusual outcome, but just as
satisfying nevertheless.
I am not interested in attacking Muslims. I am asking you to ANSWER THE
above questions . why do you dodge the question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
22 Jan 2008 06:27:47 PM |
|
|
In article <56fef$47965f24$4f61217c$22040@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220098a085f67ae698b065@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2D442593662mattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among
others is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal, if
extreme human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
So your solution to what you see as cowardly sociopathic acts of
formenting hatrid against an ideology like Islam, is to forment hatred
against Jews, Christians, Americans etc etc... Your logic seems a bit
flawed.
No, my solution is to point out what these sociopaths are up to. One of
the ways I do this is to ask if they are interested in the specific act
they post about, or are they only interested in vilifying the group they
target. If they claim to be interested in the act and not in vilifying
the group, I ask why they are not posting articles about similar acts by
other groups. If they claim there are no similar acts to report, I
provide some. This tactic usually reduces the average neo-Nazi
propagandist footsoldier to foamy-mouthed ranting.
Ther are no similar policies of any other church! No other church depicts
sex with a nine year old as acceptable as far as I know. Certainly
christianity does NOT!
so again I ask you do you accept that Islam depicts the main prophet in his
fifties as having sex with a nine year old and Christianity does NOT depict
such a thing. furthermore do you accept that Islamic scholars and clerics
have endorces such sex and christian tradition scholars and clerics have
condemned such acts?
With you however, I achieved an admission that you are primarily
interested in vilifying Muslims. An unusual outcome, but just as
satisfying nevertheless.
I am not interested in attacking Muslims. I am asking you to ANSWER THE
above questions . why do you dodge the question?
I've posted a literary reference, and even a scan of Tractate Niddah,
from the Babylonian Talmud, which specifically deals with sex with very
young children. This is the basis of Law on the topic for all the
Abrahamic faiths.
I've invited you to show me a later reference that modifies this Law in
either Judaism or Christianity. It is possible such a reference exists,
but I don't know of it. A reference does occur in Islam however, the
Prophet's decision to wait until his bride was 9 before consummating the
marriage.
In the absence of a reference to the contrary, we have to assume the
precedent in Niddah M. 5:4 is still the current authority on the matter
for both Judaism and Christianity.
You may be shocked to find this to be the black letter law of your
faith, but pretending it isn't so in the face of the evidence is not
helpful.
In practical reality all the Abrahamic faiths use methods other than
scriptural interpretation to make rules for their respective societies.
They simply make up new rules to suit contemporary morality. All
countries with societies based on the Abrahamic faiths have enacted laws
that place a lower age limit on sexual activity, and all countries have
set this limit as being older than that specified in the religious
texts.
There are some fanatics in all the faiths who insist that something
written in the Bible, Koran, Torah, Talmud or Hadith is absolute truth
and applies at all times and in all places. These people are called
fundamentalists and they are the source of much of the hatred, violence
and suffering in the world.
The most disturbing thing I find is they often point the finger at
people just like themselves, rail about how evil they are, and foment
hatred toward them that leads to violence and war.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
23 Jan 2008 08:26:31 AM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220126f3a0d50bd798b069@news.bigpond.com...
In article <56fef$47965f24$4f61217c$22040@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220098a085f67ae698b065@news.bigpond.com...
In article <Xns9A2D442593662mattbaylorgmailcom@216.196.97.131>,
mattbaylor@gmail.com writes...
I'm human. I've been known to feel hatred. Fomenting hatred among
others is not the same thing as feeling hatred. One is a normal,
if
extreme human emotion. The other is a cowardly sociopathic act.
So your solution to what you see as cowardly sociopathic acts of
formenting hatrid against an ideology like Islam, is to forment
hatred
against Jews, Christians, Americans etc etc... Your logic seems a
bit
flawed.
No, my solution is to point out what these sociopaths are up to. One
of
the ways I do this is to ask if they are interested in the specific
act
they post about, or are they only interested in vilifying the group
they
target. If they claim to be interested in the act and not in vilifying
the group, I ask why they are not posting articles about similar acts
by
other groups. If they claim there are no similar acts to report, I
provide some. This tactic usually reduces the average neo-Nazi
propagandist footsoldier to foamy-mouthed ranting.
Ther are no similar policies of any other church! No other church
depicts
sex with a nine year old as acceptable as far as I know. Certainly
christianity does NOT!
so again I ask you do you accept that Islam depicts the main prophet in
his
fifties as having sex with a nine year old and Christianity does NOT
depict
such a thing. furthermore do you accept that Islamic scholars and
clerics
have endorces such sex and christian tradition scholars and clerics have
condemned such acts?
With you however, I achieved an admission that you are primarily
interested in vilifying Muslims. An unusual outcome, but just as
satisfying nevertheless.
I am not interested in attacking Muslims. I am asking you to ANSWER THE
above questions . why do you dodge the question?
I've posted a literary reference, and even a scan of Tractate Niddah,
from the Babylonian Talmud, which specifically deals with sex with very
young children. This is the basis of Law on the topic for all the
Abrahamic faiths.
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
I have asked where in the Old Testament this is written
You haven't replied to that because you CANT can you?
I have pointed out that Leviticus has laws about sex cleaniness diet and
other things and these DO NOT APPLY to Christians!
I've invited you to show me a later reference that modifies this Law in
either Judaism or Christianity. It is possible such a reference exists,
but I don't know of it. A reference does occur in Islam however, the
Prophet's decision to wait until his bride was 9 before consummating the
marriage.
Your argument is this:
1. Jewish law is Gods law until God changes it!
2. Jewish law allows sex with children younger than nine!
3. Christians didnt change it!
4. Islam changed it to nine as a minimum age.
1. You have been pointed to the fact that Christians believe Christ was God
and is the fulfillment of prophesy and the covenant! Christ was the
embodyment ofg the law as they see it! The Early Christian apostles saw this
as changing all these Jewish laws.
You have not even established 2.
3 is clearly wrong!
4 is all we everyone can accept. Islam DOES indeed state this.
In the absence of a reference to the contrary, we have to assume the
precedent in Niddah M. 5:4 is still the current authority on the matter
for both Judaism and Christianity.
And there is Ample reference to the contrary which you have been shown! 3 is
Wrong!
http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/Jews04.htm
"Wherefore, my judgement (sentence) is, that we trouble not them, who from
the Gentiles are turned to God; Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who
went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying, Ye must be circumcised, AND KEEP THE LAW, to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH
COMMAND," The passage was about more than circumcision, it was about not
being offensive to believing Jews, to show love and understanding toward
them (vv. 20-21; 28-29; Rom. 14:12-17; 1 Cor. 8:1-13).
You may be shocked to find this to be the black letter law of your
faith, but pretending it isn't so in the face of the evidence is not
helpful.
Indeed. and you have been shown some of the evidence. This came as a result
of a discussion out of the problem of whether people who were not
circumsised should be accepted as christians. The Bible states that because
the Jews rejected the covenant it was offered to others.
In practical reality all the Abrahamic faiths use methods other than
scriptural interpretation to make rules for their respective societies.
Yes this would be their cultural and secular even pagan background. Indeed
in Celtic countries Christians augmented their Christianity through using
Pagan symbols.
They simply make up new rules to suit contemporary morality. All
countries with societies based on the Abrahamic faiths have enacted laws
that place a lower age limit on sexual activity, and all countries have
set this limit as being older than that specified in the religious
texts.
NO! As Christians view it and as they have always viewed it if someone 3000
years ago or 2000 or 1000 or today said sex with a nine year old is
acceptable then they were WRONG!
There are some fanatics in all the faiths who insist that something
written in the Bible, Koran, Torah, Talmud or Hadith is absolute truth
and applies at all times and in all places. These people are called
fundamentalists and they are the source of much of the hatred, violence
and suffering in the world.
Christianity did NOT say a fifty year ool having sex with a nine year old is
right ever!
Also, Do you accept that Muslims believe (not fundamentalists but most of
them) that you can not say anything Mohammad did was a wrong act! even
today!
Surely if something Mohammad did can be considered evil today then ANYTHING
Mohammad did can be considered evil?
The most disturbing thing I find is they often point the finger at
people just like themselves, rail about how evil they are, and foment
hatred toward them that leads to violence and war.
So what? Thats a fallacy of "guilt by association" ! If bigots and racists
say that people landed on the Moon you can not conclude it is not true. If
Hitler stated a piece of music or a painting was great art then you can't
say it isnt great just because he was an evil dictator!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
23 Jan 2008 08:33:21 PM |
|
|
In article <237c8$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
Jesus said it did. Thats good enough for me!
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 03:51:27 AM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220295ed86b32aa98b082@news.bigpond.com...
In article <237c8$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
Jesus said it did. Thats good enough for me!
Jesus is not recorded anywhere saying that sex with a nine year old is
acceptable!
Jesus did not say that people have to follow all the Jewish laws. clearly
Christians view Christ as a new covenant. They do not have to follow the
Jewish laws and are not bound by them!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 06:27:54 AM |
|
|
In article <9a41d$4798630c$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220295ed86b32aa98b082@news.bigpond.com...
In article <237c8$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
Jesus said it did. Thats good enough for me!
Jesus is not recorded anywhere saying that sex with a nine year old is
acceptable!
Jesus did not say that people have to follow all the Jewish laws. clearly
Christians view Christ as a new covenant. They do not have to follow the
Jewish laws and are not bound by them!
Does that include the one about having no other Gods beside Jehovah?
What about the one about adultery? If Jesus has repealed that one you
should see a publicist, Christianity could make a BIG comeback!
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 12:15:54 PM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.22032145274984e098b08c@news.bigpond.com...
In article <9a41d$4798630c$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220295ed86b32aa98b082@news.bigpond.com...
In article <237c8$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
Jesus said it did. Thats good enough for me!
Jesus is not recorded anywhere saying that sex with a nine year old is
acceptable!
Jesus did not say that people have to follow all the Jewish laws. clearly
Christians view Christ as a new covenant. They do not have to follow the
Jewish laws and are not bound by them!
Does that include the one about having no other Gods beside Jehovah?
the point about there being no other gods isnt a Law it is a fact as far as
Christians are concerned. i do not think christian belief is that there are
ANY other gods. But the idea is that people who believe in other gods and
worship them are not monotheist by definition.
Christianity is not monotheist because of Jewish Law! It is monothiest
because there is only one God as they view it! Unlike Islam like I see iot
god can't make a law saying ther are more than one gods or other things that
defy reason. this is what the Pope referred to in his fait and reason
address - the one the media made a big fuss about!
What about the one about adultery?
Well The Lawmakers tried one on with Christ when they asked him about the
law regarding divorce. they tried to catch him out! And again he pointed to
the spirit of the law rather than the letter which is a temporal matter.
Christ does refer to Adultery and divorce in the New Testament. He does not
refer to Kocher foods and child sex. But the apostles later do look into the
Law in the book ACTS Chorinthians and Romans
If Jesus has repealed that one you
should see a publicist, Christianity could make a BIG comeback!
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html
The Jews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very differently than
Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had intercourse with
someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a married man to have
intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the sin of "trespassing" on a
man's property. Until marriage women were the property of their fathers.
After marriage they became the property of their husband.
Solomon: 700 Wives + 300 Concubines In O.T. times concubinage was an
official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines,
but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign
wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was
contrary to God's teaching. David committed adultery, only because Bathsheba
was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17
concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a
blessing.
The Apostle Paul's recommendation to the pastors Timothy and Titus (1 Tim.
3:2; Tit. 1:6) that church elders should be "husbands of one wife"
(literally "one-wife husbands) has often been used to condemn multiple
marriage.
While some scholars think that this text is a command for an elder not to
remarry after being widowed or, perhaps, divorced, most see it as a
prohibition of polygamy.
The Women Caught In Adultery John 7:53-8:11
Many Bibles either exclude this story or indicate it is questionable, since
it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. The message of the story has
nothing to do with adultery, but about not judging. There is no indication
the marital status of the women. If she was married she clearly committed
adultery against her husband, which was the most likely case. If single she
sinned against her father who can owns her and gets a higher marriage price
if she is a virgin. Jesus says very little directly about sexuality, (never
a word about singles sex and homosexuality) but uses adultery as an example
to prove other points.
The passage is not about adultery, but the entrapment of Jesus by the
Pharisees. In the Courtyard hundreds of people are gathered to hear Jesus
teach them from the scriptures. He had just taken His seat to begin telling
them of a parable of the Kingdom, when suddenly a handful of Pharisees and
doctors of the law pushed their way to the front of the startled crowd.
These religious leaders with their long robes and colorful sashes of
authority were the official Jewish Bible Teachers. They prided themselves on
their discovery of 613 different commandments in Mosaic Law. In public they
loved to quote, interpret, and enforce their 248 positive and 365 negative
commands. They were quick to condemn anyone who broke the laws or their own
official interpretations of them.
That morning they had trapped a women in the act of adultery. They dragged
her to the temple courtyard and deposited her at Jesus' feet. Loudly they
shouted above the noise of the crowd, "Master, this women was caught in the
very act of adultery." One of the Pharisees was loudly reminding, "The Law
of Moses has laid down that such a women should be stoned." Although this
punishment for adultery was 2000 years old and given when God's primitive
people had forgotten Him in an orgy of disobedience, it was still on the
books. And though the punishment was not generally enforced in Jesus' day,
the Pharisees carried stones to obey the law literally and thus execute her
on the spot.
Actually, they were after Jesus not the women. She was only bait for the
trap to dishonor and discredit this young teacher Jesus. He had threatened
their stranglehold on the people with His loving interpretation of the law.
But Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount changed the law to only the law of
love.
Jesus clearly shows in this passage that love is a superior law than
legalism. In non-cheating, done together will agreement of the couples,
responsible non-monogamy enhances many relationships. Couples are simply
enjoying with each other their natural desire for sexual variety. In
biblical times, men always had this option. The only difference is women now
have the same rights of sexual enjoyment and variety that men had in the
time of Christ. Since Christ never condemned the unloving OT practices,
(such as levirate marriages, concubines as breeders and man taking as many
wives as he wished by making a deal with the father), He certainly wouldn't
condemn today's loving, polyfidelity, responsible non-monogamy, consenting,
no cheating relationships.
The Christian law can be reduced to one single Golden Rule. Love God and
love other people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 04:33:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1a69$4798ecc0$4f61217c$364@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.22032145274984e098b08c@news.bigpond.com...
In article <9a41d$4798630c$4f61217c$17227@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.220295ed86b32aa98b082@news.bigpond.com...
In article <237c8$47975634$4f61217c$25882@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
SAy you?
This MAY apply to Jews but certainly NOT to Christians.
Jesus said it did. Thats good enough for me!
Jesus is not recorded anywhere saying that sex with a nine year old is
acceptable!
Jesus did not say that people have to follow all the Jewish laws. clearly
Christians view Christ as a new covenant. They do not have to follow the
Jewish laws and are not bound by them!
Does that include the one about having no other Gods beside Jehovah?
the point about there being no other gods isnt a Law it is a fact as far as
Christians are concerned. i do not think christian belief is that there are
ANY other gods. But the idea is that people who believe in other gods and
worship them are not monotheist by definition.
Christianity is not monotheist because of Jewish Law! It is monothiest
because there is only one God as they view it! Unlike Islam like I see iot
god can't make a law saying ther are more than one gods or other things that
defy reason. this is what the Pope referred to in his fait and reason
address - the one the media made a big fuss about!
What about the one about adultery?
Well The Lawmakers tried one on with Christ when they asked him about the
law regarding divorce. they tried to catch him out! And again he pointed to
the spirit of the law rather than the letter which is a temporal matter.
Christ does refer to Adultery and divorce in the New Testament. He does not
refer to Kocher foods and child sex. But the apostles later do look into the
Law in the book ACTS Chorinthians and Romans
If Jesus has repealed that one you
should see a publicist, Christianity could make a BIG comeback!
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/adultery.html
The Jews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very differently than
Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had intercourse with
someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a married man to have
intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the sin of "trespassing" on a
man's property. Until marriage women were the property of their fathers.
After marriage they became the property of their husband.
Solomon: 700 Wives + 300 Concubines In O.T. times concubinage was an
official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines,
but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign
wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was
contrary to God's teaching. David committed adultery, only because Bathsheba
was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17
concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a
blessing.
The Apostle Paul's recommendation to the pastors Timothy and Titus (1 Tim.
3:2; Tit. 1:6) that church elders should be "husbands of one wife"
(literally "one-wife husbands) has often been used to condemn multiple
marriage.
While some scholars think that this text is a command for an elder not to
remarry after being widowed or, perhaps, divorced, most see it as a
prohibition of polygamy.
The Women Caught In Adultery John 7:53-8:11
Many Bibles either exclude this story or indicate it is questionable, since
it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. The message of the story has
nothing to do with adultery, but about not judging. There is no indication
the marital status of the women. If she was married she clearly committed
adultery against her husband, which was the most likely case. If single she
sinned against her father who can owns her and gets a higher marriage price
if she is a virgin. Jesus says very little directly about sexuality, (never
a word about singles sex and homosexuality) but uses adultery as an example
to prove other points.
The passage is not about adultery, but the entrapment of Jesus by the
Pharisees. In the Courtyard hundreds of people are gathered to hear Jesus
teach them from the scriptures. He had just taken His seat to begin telling
them of a parable of the Kingdom, when suddenly a handful of Pharisees and
doctors of the law pushed their way to the front of the startled crowd.
These religious leaders with their long robes and colorful sashes of
authority were the official Jewish Bible Teachers. They prided themselves on
their discovery of 613 different commandments in Mosaic Law. In public they
loved to quote, interpret, and enforce their 248 positive and 365 negative
commands. They were quick to condemn anyone who broke the laws or their own
official interpretations of them.
That morning they had trapped a women in the act of adultery. They dragged
her to the temple courtyard and deposited her at Jesus' feet. Loudly they
shouted above the noise of the crowd, "Master, this women was caught in the
very act of adultery." One of the Pharisees was loudly reminding, "The Law
of Moses has laid down that such a women should be stoned." Although this
punishment for adultery was 2000 years old and given when God's primitive
people had forgotten Him in an orgy of disobedience, it was still on the
books. And though the punishment was not generally enforced in Jesus' day,
the Pharisees carried stones to obey the law literally and thus execute her
on the spot.
Actually, they were after Jesus not the women. She was only bait for the
trap to dishonor and discredit this young teacher Jesus. He had threatened
their stranglehold on the people with His loving interpretation of the law.
But Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount changed the law to only the law of
love.
Jesus clearly shows in this passage that love is a superior law than
legalism. In non-cheating, done together will agreement of the couples,
responsible non-monogamy enhances many relationships. Couples are simply
enjoying with each other their natural desire for sexual variety. In
biblical times, men always had this option. The only difference is women now
have the same rights of sexual enjoyment and variety that men had in the
time of Christ. Since Christ never condemned the unloving OT practices,
(such as levirate marriages, concubines as breeders and man taking as many
wives as he wished by making a deal with the father), He certainly wouldn't
condemn today's loving, polyfidelity, responsible non-monogamy, consenting,
no cheating relationships.
The Christian law can be reduced to one single Golden Rule. Love God and
love other people.
A long winded reply that failed to answer the question: has the
commandment against adultery been repealed?
Once you've answered that one we can move on to stealing and murder.
--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mavisbeacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
24 Jan 2008 05:44:35 PM |
|
|
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203af23432dcd7698b091@news.bigpond.com...
In article <1a69$4798ecc0$4f61217c$364@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[snip]
The Christian law can be reduced to one single Golden Rule. Love God and
love other people.
A long winded reply that failed to answer the question: has the
commandment against adultery been repealed?
Once you've answered that one we can move on to stealing and murder.
Okay then.
Could you define what you mean by "adultery" please?
Could you reference it with quotes from the Old Testament?
I suspect the answer is NO - that law does not apply as it did in the Old
Testament.
If you mean the old testament version in my "long winded" reply I suggest
Christians would not accept that.
and you MISS the point. it isn't about positive law. It isn't about things
being allowed based on what is written. it is about "natural law" , about
the spirit of the law. about doing the right thing and not the wrong thing
and not just going by what is literally written down!
authoritarian fundamentalists regularly think this is what Christianity is
about! it isn't!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Moss" |
|
| Title: Re: Mohammed and Aisha - The Perfect Love Story |
25 Jan 2008 02:48:17 AM |
|
|
In article <b5a78$47992322$4f61217c$10144@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2203af23432dcd7698b091@news.bigpond.com...
In article <1a69$4798ecc0$4f61217c$364@news.upc.ie>,
Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme writes...
[snip]
The Christian law can be reduced to one single Golden Rule. Love God and
love other people.
A long winded reply that failed to answer the question: has the
commandment against adultery been repealed?
Once you've answered that one we can move on to stealing and murder.
Okay then.
Could you define what you mean by "adultery" please?
Could you reference it with quotes from the Old Testament?
I suspect the answer is NO - that law does not apply as it did in the Old
Testament.
If you mean the old testament version in my "long winded" reply I suggest
Christians would not accept that.
and you MISS the point. it isn't about positive law. It isn't about things
being allowed based on what is written. it is about "natural law" , about
the spirit of the law. about doing the right thing and not the wrong thing
and not just going by what is literally written down!
authoritarian fundamentalists regularly think this is what Christianity is
about! it isn't!
It seems to me you use Jesus Christ as an excuse to ignore the Law you
don't like and keep the Law you like. If thats how you understand it, go
for it. Jesus was pretty specific in saying that wasn't what he meant
though. So if you are going to claim to follow Jesus, but ignore what he
actually said, be prepared to be regarde | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
