NationStates Jolt Archive

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money?Why in the fuck else would you conceive a religion? :rolleyes:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/myers_anticipation.wav

Why am I limited by those two choices?

Why in the fuck else would you conceive a religion? :rolleyes:

Good point, although I do think there have been some 'true believers,' who honestly thought they were acting with God's consent. There are, at the very least, a few quirks in the human brain that can cause this, and I suppose there's no way to prove that God isn't behind it. ;)

However, creating a myth intended to unite a group of Arab tribes with the purpose of taking power while elevating oneself out of squalor seems to have been Muhammad's incentive from what I've read.

Mohammed wasn't Islam's only prophet, merely the last one. Islam had about twenty other prophets, five of which are particularly popular -- Mohammed is one, of coruse but the other four are Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus).

INFIDELS!!!!!1111!!One!!!!1

In before Gauthier performs l33t speak on this :)

Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris Facts. They're both getting old and retarded.

In before Gauthier performs l33t speak on this :)

EDIT: I'd like to note that I wrote this before Gauthier's post appeared so it's only the evil machinations of Jolt that makes my prediction seem written after the fact.

EDIT EDIT: Noted that Gauthier's post quotes mine, Jolt is proven to suck in too many ways.

Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris Facts. They're both getting old and retarded.
Except Ebil Moslem Rants were always retarded.

Mohammed wasn't Islam's only prophet, merely the last one. Islam had about twenty other prophets, five of which are particularly popular -- Mohammed is one, of coruse but the other four are Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus).

Muhammad is at least the first prophet *unique* to Islam, then.

Incidentally, I wonder if the Mormons have 'baptized' Muhammad yet? That'd be fun. :)

Except Bahai views Muhammed similar to how christianity views Jesus.

Except Bahai views Muhammed similar to how christianity views Jesus.

Eh. Let's stick to major religions, eh? Not fu-fu spin-offs. :p

Pffft! You're just jealous.

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

Irony in motion:

There is a difference between debating and arguing a point and being downright offensive to people who are Christians.
I find the fact that you used such vulgarity to describe the divine conception really really offensive. And completely unnecessary. And completely pointless to this discussion.
And to be honest, this whole debate is pointless. Because clearly in this forum there are people who are opposed to Jesus and Christianity, and really just want a place where they can express that....its sad.

Irony in motion:

Cue the Pac Man Graph.

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

/thread

Good Post Cabra West :)

*gives slice of cheese cake*

/thread

Good Post Cabra West :)

*gives slice of cheese cake*

Strawberry cheese cake?
Thanks! :D

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

This should be posted at the top of the forum. *nod*

Why in the fuck else would you conceive a religion? :rolleyes:

because something big, invisible and impossible to say no to, taps you on the sholder and says YOU are going to channel ME for the rest of your miserable mortal life, and probably get screwed by your fellow mortal beings as every other one of my chosen channelers has been.

no, none of the founders of any of the dominant beliefs volunteered for the job, nor got anything good out of having it thrust upon them.

now i do seriously question any claim of this having made any of them infallabe either. but mohammid was, in a sense the first return of christ, just as christ was the return of moses and moses of abraham and abraham of noah and noah of those 18 begats, one after another, a thousand years apart on average, as these chosen channelers have continued to be, all the way back beyond the war between the fallowers of cain and able to supposedly adam in the garden of oldivoi some 25thousand years ago if you count all of them.

since mohammid we have had the twin revelation of the bab and baha'u'llah, again, their lives made anything but soft and large by their having been choosen. rejected as inevitably, each are, by the blind fanatics of each outpouring that comes before.

all having been chosen, by the same irrefusable force, whatever name their fallowers choose to invent for it.

=^^=
.../\...

I find this study you speak of fascinating, however I would point out that not all religions contain mass murder in their exemplars on how to follow God(s).

By the way, did the second story include that General Li was told to kill by God or did they change that too? If God was removed from the story then the study is mostly worthless. I'm sure they mentioned some Chinese God told the good General, but just checking.

Btw, even if Mohammad ate babies on a stick, none of the Muslims I know are doing it and so Mohammad should be left alone. All poking at his image does is start needless fights.

I find this study you speak of fascinating, however I would point out that not all religions contain mass murder in their exemplars on how to follow God(s).

No doubt... I believe Buddhism might form one of the largest exceptions there. But as far as I can tell, the vast majority of them do.


By the way, did the second story include that General Li was told to kill by God or did they change that too? If God was removed from the story then the study is mostly worthless. I'm sure they mentioned some Chinese God told the good General, but just checking.

Btw, even if Mohammad ate babies on a stick, none of the Muslims I know are doing it and so Mohammad should be left alone. All poking at his image does is start needless fights.

I'll have to read up on this, but I seem to remember they made up a Chinese god for the experiment. I can post the reference later, as I only have it in printed form, no links, sorry.

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.
That's assuming that there is such a thing as instinctive human moral, which is highly doubtful. Plenty of ordinary people have been proven to be capable of utterly horrendous acts under the right circumstances. The Holocaust, for instance, was done with the collaboration of many otherwise normal Germans. Or to use another example, Aztec society contained lots of normal people who saw nothing wrong with capturing prisoners, making them walk to the top of a pyramid and ceremonially cutting out their living hearts.

Did the experimenters ever ask the children why they thought General Li was evil? I expect they would have answered "because he disobeyed God's command not to kill." It's not any instinctive human moral that makes killing wrong - it's religious morality that makes killing wrong.

Besides, it is illogical for a person who does not believe in absolute morality to accuse religion of being immoral.

That's assuming that there is such a thing as instinctive human moral, which is highly doubtful. Plenty of ordinary people have been proven to be capable of utterly horrendous acts under the right circumstances. The Holocaust, for instance, was done with the collaboration of many otherwise normal Germans. Or to use another example, Aztec society contained lots of normal people who saw nothing wrong with capturing prisoners, making them walk to the top of a pyramid and ceremonially cutting out their living hearts.

Did the experimenters ever ask the children why they thought General Li was evil? I expect they would have answered "because he disobeyed God's command not to kill." It's not any instinctive human moral that makes killing wrong - it's religious morality that makes killing wrong.

Besides, it is illogical for a person who does not believe in absolute morality to accuse religion of being immoral.


It's not nearly as doubtful as you make it out to be. Humans are social animals, and as such have an instinctive set of moral rules that allow them to function in society, be that a family group or a nation state. Most generally, that set of rules can easily be summed up in the Golden Rule, behave towards others as you would want them to behave towards yourself.
However, these inate behavioural guidelines are rather flexible for the individual. Nobody would argue that knowing that stealing is wrong will prevent a thief from taking your wallet. On the whole, though, you will not find a society in which the thieves outnumber the non-thieves.

People are born with these morals, they don't obtain them later in life. If that was the case, humanity would never have been able to live together in groups in the first place.
Religion is a relatively new invention in human evolution, after all.

Thank you for quoting the Aztecs and the Holocaust, as both are prime examples of the behaviour outlined in the experiment I presented. In both cases, religion and fanatism overrode the set of morals of the group in question and led them to commit horrendous crimes.

Except Bahai views Muhammed similar to how christianity views Jesus.

I talked to a practicing member of the Baha'i faith a while back and asked how the ten Sikh guru's were viewed by the religion, apparently they are not!

No doubt... I believe Buddhism might form one of the largest exceptions there. But as far as I can tell, the vast majority of them do.

I keep telling you people Sikhi!

The ten Sikh gurus murdered nobody, one of them was the only originator of a religion marteyed on the behalf of a different religion, and they are the only originators of any religion that wrote the holy scripture them selves, whilst they were still alive.


Get it, got it, good!:D

That's assuming that there is such a thing as instinctive human moral, which is highly doubtful.

I think there are some shared objective mortal codes. Killing being one of them. Yes of course we have people doing awful things, during awful times, this does not show that the act of a human killing another is not a shared moral code, it just shows that everybody can be immoral.

Mohammed? Wasn't he a Teddy Bear?

Mohammed? Wasn't he a Teddy Bear?

Bwahahahahahaha!

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?
Dude, the God of Abraham is one sick puppy, so OF COURSE his prophets will be too.

The God of the Torah was a sadist. Whenever he wasn't torturing and murdering his own children, he was ordering them to torture and murder each other.

The God of the Bible raped a 14 year old girl so that he could force her to birth His son, for the specific purpose of seeing the son tortured to death several years down the line.

Why on Earth would anybody be shocked to discover that the God of the Qu'ran is equally bonkers? HE'S THE SAME GOD. Shock of shocks, the prophets who speak the word of this God also tend toward the bonkers end of the spectrum.

Mohammed wasn't Islam's only prophet, merely the last one. Islam had about twenty other prophets, five of which are particularly popular -- Mohammed is one, of coruse but the other four are Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus).

Islam considers every prophet of the middle-east as prophets..starting with Adam and including Jesus.

Their emphasis is that all their messages were corrupted and Mo is the final prophet who gave the uncorrupted word of God which is of course preserved the way it was delivered to him and by him to his companions.

Some muslims even believe that there were prophets sent to other places...like zoroaster and bhuddha...

Muhammad is at least the first prophet *unique* to Islam, then.

Incidentally, I wonder if the Mormons have 'baptized' Muhammad yet? That'd be fun. :)

I'll find out and get back to you on it ;)

Except Ebil Moslem Rants were always retarded.

As opposed to ebil Xtian rants, which are always fashionable.

The God of the Bible raped a 14 year old girl so that he could force her to birth His son, for the specific purpose of seeing the son tortured to death several years down the line.


Being ignorant is pitiable. Being ignorant on purpose is contemptible.

....
Btw, even if Mohammad ate babies on a stick, none of the Muslims I know are doing it and so Mohammad should be left alone. All poking at his image does is start needless fights.

Why should Muhammed and his life not be examined?

Muslims consider that Muhammed is the ultimate person to follow/emulate and it is their duty to do so. There is an equivalent of "what would Jesus do" in muslims too....the sharia et al are heavily influenced by hadiths (narrations of Muhammed's actions). Child marriage is not annulled or abolished in many muslim countries due to the example set by Muhammed.

In Iran, for women, the legal age to marry was reduced to 9 after the Islamic revolution and only now raised to 13 after much protests from rights activists.

Being ignorant is pitiable. Being ignorant on purpose is contemptible.

You mean you have conclusive evidence that shows Mary wasn't 14 when she begot Jesus ? Please post it in the "did Jesus exist" topic :)

You mean you have conclusive evidence that shows Mary wasn't 14 when she begot Jesus ? Please post it in the "did Jesus exist" topic :)

I can't tell for sure if that's a joke, so I'll just assume it is. :)

I can't tell for sure if that's a joke, so I'll just assume it is. :)

Half joke. Since we know nothing surrounding Jesus for certain, her being 14 or even younger is within the realm of possibilities. Would in fact be consistent with the belief she was a virgin even though she was married to Josef - and girls that young marrying to much older men was not really exceptional back then.

Half joke. Since we know nothing surrounding Jesus for certain, her being 14 or even younger is within the realm of possibilities. Would in fact be consistent with the belief she was a virgin even though she was married to Josef - and girls marrying that young to much older man was not really exceptional back then.

In fact, I'd say chances were she was a lot younger, seeing as it was perfectly acceptable practice to marry 9-year-olds at the time.

Half joke. Since we know nothing surrounding Jesus for certain, her being 14 or even younger is within the realm of possibilities. Would in fact be consistent with the belief she was a virgin even though she was married to Josef - and girls that young marrying to much older men was not really exceptional back then.

In any case, my initial objection was to the characterization of the other stuff. That's why I thought maybe you were joking by zeroing in on one of the non mean-spirited elements.

In any case, my initial objection was to the characterization of the other stuff. That's why I thought maybe you were joking by zeroing in on one of the non mean-spirited elements.

What was mean spirited ? The Bible agrees Jesus was destined to die horribly to save mankind.
The "rape" statement could be called offensive, but if one assumes she was so young rape is the accurate name for what happened in modern day eyes.

What was mean spirited ? The Bible agrees Jesus was destined to die horribly to save mankind.
The "rape" statement could be called offensive, but if one assumes she was so young rape is the accurate name for what happened in modern day eyes.

This is what I get for giving somebody the benefit of the doubt.

OP: Muhammad was no worse than anyone else you see in the Bible, Talmud or Qu'ran. Or any other religious text for that matter. That is because religious texts can be surprisingly realistic, and people are assholes.


Thank you for quoting the Aztecs and the Holocaust, as both are prime examples of the behaviour outlined in the experiment I presented. In both cases, religion and fanatism overrode the set of morals of the group in question and led them to commit horrendous crimes.

Actually, no fanaticism or religion was involved in the Holocaust at all.

Hitler used rhetoric to turn popular support against Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Poles and so on. Then, he basically ordered them to kill each other. Ordinary Germans turned in Jewish neighbours they didn't like, et cetera. Even Jews turned in other Jews, thinking they would be rewarded by being allowed to live (they weren't). The officers at concentration camps inflicted their pent-up anger and hatred against the prisoners simply because they had nowhere else to vent it and, given power, most people who join a paramilitary organisation are apt to abuse it. As for why it happened in the first place? Well, look at the US today. Most Americans believe that holding terrorist suspects in locations such as Guantanamo Bay is making us more secure; outside of the current political climate, that would be an absurd proposition. Likewise, in Hitler's time -- due to the way things were working out -- it made sense to many people that killing off inferior ethnic groups and annexing smaller countries would fix Germany's economic difficulties and prevent the rise of communism and terrorism. The Holocaust was all about politics.

Anyway, rant over.

Half joke. Since we know nothing surrounding Jesus for certain, her being 14 or even younger is within the realm of possibilities. Would in fact be consistent with the belief she was a virgin even though she was married to Josef - and girls that young marrying to much older men was not really exceptional back then.

According to the non cannon account of the life of Mary, in The Gospel of The Nativity of Mary , she lived in the temple, until it became time for her to be married off, which was before her first period to prevent the defiling of the Temple in Jerusalem.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/gospels/natmary.htm

If it is true, that would place her being married to Joseph at around 11-14 years of age.

"And so she reached her fourteenth year; and not only were the wicked unable to charge her with anything worthy of reproach, but all the good, who knew her life and conversation, judged her to be worthy of admiration. Then the high priest publicly announced that the virgins who were publicly settled in the temple, and had reached this time of life, should return home and get married, according to the custom of the nation and the ripeness of their years. The others readily obeyed this command; but Mary alone, the virgin of the Lord, answered that she could not do this, saying both that her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that, moreover, she herself had made to the Lord a vow of virginity, which she would never violate by any intercourse with man.

CHAP. 8.--Now there was among the rest Joseph, of the house and family of David, a man of great age: and when all brought there rods, according to the order, he alone withheld his. Wherefore, when nothing in conformity with the divine voice appeared, the high priest thought it necessary to consult God a second time; and He answered, that of those who had been designated, he alone to whom the virgin ought to be espoused had not brought his rod. Joseph, therefore, was found out. For when he had brought his rod, and the dove came from heaven; and settled upon the top of it, it clearly appeared to all that he was the man to whom the virgin should be espoused. Therefore, the usual ceremonies of betrothal having been gone through, he went back to the city of Bethlehem to put his house in order, and to procure things necessary for the marriage. But Mary, the virgin of the Lord, with seven other virgins of her own age, and who had been weaned at the same time, whom she had received from the priest, returned to the house of her parents in Galilee.

CHAP. 9.--And in those days, that is, at the time of her first coming into Galilee, the angel Gabriel was sent to her by God, to announce to her the conception of the Lord, and to explain to her the manner and order of the conception. Accordingly, going in, he filled the chamber where she was with a great light; and most courteously saluting her, he said: Hail, Mary! O virgin highly favoured by the Lord, virgin full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou above all women, blessed above all men that have been hitherto born.[3] And the virgin, who was already well acquainted with angelic faces, and was not unused to the light from heaven, was neither terrified by the vision of the angel, nor astonished at the greatness of the light, but only perplexed by his words; and she began to consider of what nature a salutation so unusual could be, or what it could portend, or what end it could have. And the angel, divinely inspired, taking up this thought, says: Fear not, Mary, as if anything contrary to thy chastity were hid under this salutation. For in choosing chastity, thou hast found favour with the Lord; and therefore thou, a virgin, shalt conceive without sin, and shalt bring forth a son. He shall be great, because He shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth;[4] and He shall be called the Son of the Most High, because He who is born on earth in humiliation, reigns in heaven in exaltation; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end;[5] forasmuch as He is King of kings and Lord of lords,[6] and His throne is from everlasting to everlasting. The virgin did not doubt these words of the angel; but wishing to know the manner of it, she answered: How can that come to pass? For while, according to my vow, I never know man, how can I bring forth without the addition of man's seed? To this the angel says: Think not, Mary, that thou shalt conceive in the manner of mankind: for without any intercourse with man, thou, a virgin, wilt conceive; thou, a virgin, wilt bring forth; thou, a virgin, wilt nurse: for the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,[7] without any of the heats of lust; and therefore that which shall be born of thee shall alone be holy, because it alone, being conceived and born without sin, shall be called the Son of God. Then Mary stretched forth her hands, and raised her eyes to heaven, and said: Behold the hand-maiden of the Lord, for I am not worthy of the name of lady; let it be to me according to thy word.
"

Again if this is true that would place her actual age of being married at 14.

Anywho, getting back to the original topic:

I don't have much of an opinion about Mohammed. Obviously, I do reject the assertion that he was a prophet, but I don't know enough about his life to say much that would be meaningful.

Actually, no fanaticism or religion was involved in the Holocaust at all.

Hitler used rhetoric to turn popular support against Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Poles and so on. Then, he basically ordered them to kill each other. Ordinary Germans turned in Jewish neighbours they didn't like, et cetera. Even Jews turned in other Jews, thinking they would be rewarded by being allowed to live (they weren't). The officers at concentration camps inflicted their pent-up anger and hatred against the prisoners simply because they had nowhere else to vent it and, given power, most people who join a paramilitary organisation are apt to abuse it. As for why it happened in the first place? Well, look at the US today. Most Americans believe that holding terrorist suspects in locations such as Guantanamo Bay is making us more secure; outside of the current political climate, that would be an absurd proposition. Likewise, in Hitler's time -- due to the way things were working out -- it made sense to many people that killing off inferior ethnic groups and annexing smaller countries would fix Germany's economic difficulties and prevent the rise of communism and terrorism. The Holocaust was all about politics.

Anyway, rant over.

I can't really say I agree with this view... Nationalsocialism in Germany at the time was set up and structured much like a fanatical religious environment would be. Yes, children were asked to spy on their parents, and yes, neighbours were only too happy to turn each other in to the authorities. But you will find this pattern of behaviour under any totalitarian regime.
The Nazi state lived of a fanatical devotion to this ideology, it permeated into all aspects of social and private life and dominated the way people saw themselves and the world.
All 4 of my grandparents lived through the Nazi years in Germany, and despite having denouned the regime and ideology for well over 60 years now, some of its aspects still will shine through their behaviour and view on the world now and then. Nazi Germany achieved a level of indoctrination that even the Catholic church in its heydays could only have dreamed of.

Islam considers every prophet of the middle-east as prophets..starting with Adam and including Jesus.

Their emphasis is that all their messages were corrupted and Mo is the final prophet who gave the uncorrupted word of God which is of course preserved the way it was delivered to him and by him to his companions.

Some muslims even believe that there were prophets sent to other places...like zoroaster and bhuddha...

The Ahmadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya) sect of Muslims believe that their founder, who taught in the Punjab during the later decades of the 19th century & in the early 20th century, was actually a new prophet "in the spirit of Mohammed"... but members of the older sects don't consider them to be true Muslims, and sometimes persecute them: In Pakistan this persecution is supported by the government, which has passed discriminatory legislation against them.

This is what I get for giving somebody the benefit of the doubt.

*shrug*. Facts are facts. If you do not like them that is not my fault.

*shrug*. Facts are facts. If you do not like them that is not my fault.

Yeah, I refuse to subscribe to the same ignoramus interpretation of them as you do so now I just don't like facts, right?

This is what I get for giving somebody the benefit of the doubt.

Well, by strict definitions of rape, I would have to ask first these questions.

1: Did god make his intentions known to Mary?

2: Did she consent?

3: If yes, was she under the effect of any hallucinogens or perception altering influences?

Very simple questions that determine whether it's rape or not.

Well, by strict definitions of rape, I would have to ask first these questions. Did god make his intentions known to Mary? Did she consent? Or was this one of those take-advantage-of-you-while-unconscious-without-your-knowledge moments?

She was told God would come in advance. The primary question is if an 11-14 year old is able to consent.
If you say yes, condemning Mohammed (hey - we are back on topic!) for consummating his marriage with Aisha becomes tough. If you say no, you say God raped Mary if her age is correct - but you remain free to call Mohammed a child molester.

Decicions, decisions.

I can't really say I agree with this view... Nationalsocialism in Germany at the time was set up and structured much like a fanatical religious environment would be. Yes, children were asked to spy on their parents, and yes, neighbours were only too happy to turn each other in to the authorities. But you will find this pattern of behaviour under any totalitarian regime.
The Nazi state lived of a fanatical devotion to this ideology, it permeated into all aspects of social and private life and dominated the way people saw themselves and the world.
All 4 of my grandparents lived through the Nazi years in Germany, and despite having denouned the regime and ideology for well over 60 years now, some of its aspects still will shine through their behaviour and view on the world now and then. Nazi Germany achieved a level of indoctrination that even the Catholic church in its heydays could only have dreamed of.

Hmmm. well, I wasn't around back then, so I probably don't have a good idea of exactly what it was like. That's merely the impression I've gotten from listening to my parents and grandparents on the subject, and reading books.

She was told God would come in advance.

Ahh, but did she consent? Lack of response is not consent, otherwise we might have some problems with the mute. And if there was consent, did the act take place in a reasonable time frame between the act and consent? One does not get a free pass to sexual relations whenever and wherever you want if someone said yes 20 years ago after all.

Being ignorant is pitiable. Being ignorant on purpose is contemptible.
That being the case, I find it particularly cute that you've deliberately ignored the information helpfully provided by OG by casually saying, "Anywho, getting back to the original topic..."

It's okay that you are ignorant about some details of history. I know I am. Just let your mistakes keep you humble, so you don't rush to insult others quite so quickly.

Well, by strict definitions of rape, I would have to ask first these questions.

1: Did god make his intentions known to Mary?

2: Did she consent?

3: If yes, was she under the effect of any hallucinogens or perception altering influences?

Very simple questions that determine whether it's rape or not.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No

Know why I use terms like 'ignoramus' and 'contemptible' to describe what you're advocating? It's because on some level you know perfectly damn well the underlying reality of the situation and yet you willfully choose to spin it to sound as dastardly and evil as possible. And if you don't have a genuine and real underlying understanding of it, then you're willfully resisting anyone's attempts to recify that. In either case, you're putting a distinct lack of understanding and/or intellectual honesty on display.

That being the case, I find it particularly cute that you've deliberately ignored the information helpfully provided by OG by casually saying, "Anywho, getting back to the original topic..."

It's okay that you are ignorant about some details of history. I know I am. Just let your mistakes keep you humble, so you don't rush to insult others quite so quickly.

That's quite possibly the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen from you.

edit: I wasn't responding to what OG said. If I were, I'd have quoted it. In fact, when I did type it I hadn't even seen OG's post yet.

But then, why let the facts get in the way of a good dig, right?

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

He was an immoral blasphemer. Luckily, there are some of us that are willing to fight the radical Muslims. I whole heartedly believe in a New Crusade against radical Islam and nations that support radical Islam.
If I had my way, I'd give weapons to Christians the world over and have our own insurgents. Long Live the New Crusade!

He was an immoral blasphemer. Luckily, there are some of us that are willing to fight the radical Muslims. I whole heartedly believe in a New Crusade against radical Islam and nations that support radical Islam.
If I had my way, I'd give weapons to Christians the world over and have our own insurgents. Long Live the New Crusade!

You're scary, please leave this place and never return.

That's quite possibly the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen from you.

edit: I wasn't responding to what OG said. If I were, I'd have quoted it. In fact, when I did type it I hadn't even seen OG's post yet.

But then, why let the facts get in the way of a good dig, right?
I don't think you and I have yet had a single productive discussion on this subject, so I am going to leave this one before any more time is wasted. I'd rather not sidetrack this thread any more than is absolutely necessary. I'll ask you to please not respond to this with further insults or anything that might lead things further off track (or get the thread locked).

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

Source?

Source?

I think I read about that about three months back in the national news papers.

I think I read about that about three months back in the national news papers.

So it isn't online anywhere? I'd like to read more about it...

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

Maybe I'm alone, but when I read this post I read more to it than"Muhammed is a big poopface, and I don't like him!" I read an intellectual attempt at examining the foundations of one of the largest beliefs in the world.

People put down Jesus all, and his teachings, and Chrisitanity all the time, and that receives mindless bandwagon support. Someone now brings up legitimate points to examine the founding of Islam as a potential tool for success and everyone yells that he is doing nothing but character assassination.

Some people on NS are very bothersome to me in their inability to apply logical standards from on situation to a relevant situation.

To comment on the OP, Muhammed did seem to be a power-hungry, warmongering person. Perhaps divine intervention... perhaps excuse for power.

Good thread IMHO.

So it isn't online anywhere? I'd like to read more about it...

It probably is, I mean it made the national news so it should be googleble!

Well, by strict definitions of rape, I would have to ask first these questions.

1: Did god make his intentions known to Mary?

2: Did she consent?

3: If yes, was she under the effect of any hallucinogens or perception altering influences?

Very simple questions that determine whether it's rape or not.

Doesn't rape imply sexual intercourse? (Or some such similar sexual interaction?) Is it then, beyond God to impregnate a women by other means? I don't think so. Also, should God will to commit a persons life to something, they often find (even by their own choice) that they cannot resist... Moses did not want to be the clerical representation of the Hebrew's to the Egyptians, Jesus didn't want to tread that mournful path up Calvary for the sins of humanity (though note that He was willing... but who wants such torture in any case?)

Whether or not God has interfered with the individual will or not, it seems that His decisions stand. Looking at this, Mary would not have wanted to get pregnant pre-maritally, yet she was joyful at discovering she was (and that He was the Saviour), Joseph did not want to go along with it, but after a conversation with an angel, he joyfully accepted it.

Again, if God can create matter from nothing, create energy from the void... I'm sure He can impregnate a women without sexual means.

It falls outside of classification to be rape by any concievable definitions.

Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris Facts. They're both getting old and retarded.

But of Ebil Christian rants and raves, there remain quite afew.

Meh,... designed to flamebait topic.

A prophet and a man,... no divinity there, so immorality (whatever that means by difference of standards, bleah) is part of the package.

To (yabber yabber yabber)a prophet?

Slow day at Troll High?

Well, by strict definitions of rape, I would have to ask first these questions.

1: Did god make his intentions known to Mary?

2: Did she consent?

3: If yes, was she under the effect of any hallucinogens or perception altering influences?

Very simple questions that determine whether it's rape or not.

Is it really Rape if there is no intercourse, I mean "Mary" was still a "virgin" when she gave birth...

Rape is defined as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)
Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will. It may be defined as forcing a person to submit to any sex act, and is generally considered one of the most serious sex crimes, as well as sometimes very difficult to prosecute.

So if there was no penetration and no acts of sex, is it rape?

So if there was no penetration and no acts of sex, is it rape?

Good one.
Hmm. I can impregnate a woman without penetrating her with my penis thanks to the marvels of modern surgery. Would it be rape if I did that without her consent ?

I don't think you and I have yet had a single productive discussion on this subject, so I am going to leave this one before any more time is wasted. I'd rather not sidetrack this thread any more than is absolutely necessary. I'll ask you to please not respond to this with further insults or anything that might lead things further off track (or get the thread locked).

Right. So in the spirit of that... where was I? Oh yes.. I remember:

Anywho, getting back to the original topic:

I don't have much of an opinion about Mohammed. Obviously, I do reject the assertion that he was a prophet, but I don't know enough about his life to say much that would be meaningful.

(I assume you won't dispute it this time.)

I'm not sure if any Muslims have responded yet to this thread, but I do have a question for you.

Within Islam, are there different sects or factions that interpret Mohammed in drastically different ways, as is sometimes found in Christianity with Jesus? I don't necessarily mean with regard to who he married or how old they were, but more generally. In other words, is the portrayal of Mohammed consistent across different Islamic schools of thought?

Les deux, maybe. I don't know him well enough to say.

It's significantly silly, if you're not a Muslim, to defend Muhammad.

I'm not sure if any Muslims have responded yet to this thread, but I do have a question for you.

Within Islam, are there different sects or factions that interpret Mohammed in drastically different ways, as is sometimes found in Christianity with Jesus? I don't necessarily mean with regard to who he married or how old they were, but more generally. In other words, is the portrayal of Mohammed consistent across different Islamic schools of thought?

Mostly : No, the difference usually is about who's the rightful heir, Ali or Hussein.

Other times is about the interpretations or tafsirs of the passages and hadith.

Mohammed the man himself usually is an undisputable wise but fallable man, albeit the one who brings the word of God to man.

I think so,... I'm so bad at this.

Mostly : No, the difference usually is about who's the rightful heir, Ali or Hussein.

Other times is about the interpretations or tafsirs of the passages and hadith.

Mohammed the man himself usually is an undisputable wise but fallable man, albeit the one who brings the word of God to man.

I think so,... I'm so bad at this.

Hey thanks for the reply.

So Ali and Hussein are his sons? What would they be the heir of? (I assume that the inheritance wouldn't be the position of prophet... right?)

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

First of all, it's not really all that relevant. Muslims worship God, not Muhammed.

Now lets look at your accusations. The majority of his marriages were to widows who at the time would have had no means of sustenance. No one bore Muhammed any children (other than his first wife), so it clearly wasn't lust, rather it was charity.

There are Hadiths that say Aisha was not 6, but rather 14, some that say she was 18. None of them claim that she ever bore him children, and many claim that she was a virgin (and those Hadiths that claim otherwise state she had sex with other men, not Muhammed). So no, he's not a pedophile.

Slaves? Do we judge people outside of their own time? No. Besides, Islam's treatment of slaves was quite gentle compared to "Western slavery". Need proof though (same for concubines).

Conquests were rather standard at the time. Everyone did them, so I don't see what your point is. The Muslim conquests were rather gentle as well, during Muhammed's life there were eighty two battles, of which only a little over 1000 people died.

Let's see some of those violent verses.

I think he was a prophet, nuff said.

Also, just to point out, hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Piu alla vita
There is a difference between debating and arguing a point and being downright offensive to people who are Christians.
I find the fact that you used such vulgarity to describe the divine conception really really offensive. And completely unnecessary. And completely pointless to this discussion.
And to be honest, this whole debate is pointless. Because clearly in this forum there are people who are opposed to Jesus and Christianity, and really just want a place where they can express that....its sad.

Hey thanks for the reply.

So Ali and Hussein are his sons? What would they be the heir of? (I assume that the inheritance wouldn't be the position of prophet... right?)

More than likely a spiritual successor,... I think it was for the first Imam.

Actually the Ali's a second cousin (and son-in-law, you gotta love the family drama) to Mohammed and Hussein is Ali's son. This drove the Shiah and Sunni schism.

... I gotta admit wiki's entry is a pretty fair illustrations on the divisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam

(THOUGH, I hate to admit that I'm using wikipedia as a reference)

Why am I limited by those two choices?

The two are not mutually exclusive of course... :D

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

Scary isn't it? And we atheists are supposed to be the evil, amoral ones.

Scary isn't it? And we atheists are supposed to be the evil, amoral ones.

Really? Haven't noticed, 'cause most of the time the self-proclaimed atheists I meet are those people that spewed pamphlet slogans that most of the time are only using atheistic views to get attention.

I like the "meh, so?" type atheists. I think they're really the true kind of atheists.

More than likely a spiritual successor,... I think it was for the first Imam.

Actually the Ali's a second cousin (and son-in-law, you gotta love the family drama) to Mohammed and Hussein is Ali's son. This drove the Shiah and Sunni schism.

... I gotta admit wiki's entry is a pretty fair illustrations on the divisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam

(THOUGH, I hate to admit that I'm using wikipedia as a reference)

Cool, I'll check it out. Thank you!

I like the "meh, so?" type atheists. I think they're really the true kind of atheists.

They are, at least, consistent.

Being ignorant is pitiable. Being ignorant on purpose is contemptible.

Which bit are you objecting to?

1. That the conception occurred without Mary's consent?

2. That she was 14?

3. That the Crucifixion was the intended culmination of Jesus' ministry?

Having reread Matt 1 and Luke 1 I have to say that the first point seems fairly well established: in Matthew's account there's no mention of any annunciation, and it's implied that Joseph is the first to hear (after she's already pregnant); in Luke the angel's speech is very definite:

30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

This isn't a request, it's an announcement.

Point 3 is a fairly standard point of Christian theology, see John 3.

Point 2 is more controversial, but it seems to be the general scholarly consensus based on what little evidence we have.

So please tell me, on which point are we willfully ignorant?

Really? Haven't noticed, 'cause most of the time the self-proclaimed atheists I meet are those people that spewed pamphlet slogans that most of the time are only using atheistic views to get attention.

It's not exactly an uncommon accusation.

I like the "meh, so?" type atheists. I think they're really the true kind of atheists.

If religion would get the hell out of government I'd be more than happy to leave it alone. Sadly that doesn't seem likely to happen in the near future.

Which bit are you objecting to?

1. That the conception occurred without Mary's consent?

2. That she was 14?

3. That the Crucifixion was the intended culmination of Jesus' ministry?

Having reread Matt 1 and Luke 1 I have to say that the first point seems fairly well established: in Matthew's account there's no mention of any annunciation, and it's implied that Joseph is the first to hear (after she's already pregnant); in Luke the angel's speech is very definite:



This isn't a request, it's an announcement.

Point 3 is a fairly standard point of Christian theology, see John 3.

Point 2 is more controversial, but it seems to be the general scholarly consensus based on what little evidence we have.

So please tell me, on which point are we willfully ignorant?

So you throw out a set of arguments that indicate you've already made an assumption as to what I object to, then in a snotty tone, ask me what I object to.

I think this threadjack has had enough attention.

OP: Muhammad was no worse than anyone else you see in the Bible, Talmud or Qu'ran. Or any other religious text for that matter. That is because religious texts can be surprisingly realistic, and people are assholes.

Very few people, even those who are indisputably arseholes, commit murder.

The key word being 'told'.

Nah. The keyquestion being "does it matter what she said ?"
Last time I checked, we still lock up adults that impregnate a 14 year old girl even if she said YES - DO ME PLEASE !.

Back then of course it was fine. But does that make it right ?

She was told God would come in advance.

The key word being 'told'.

Nah. The keyquestion being "does it matter what she said ?"
Last time I checked, we still lock up adults that impregnate a 14 year old girl even if she said YES - DO ME PLEASE !.

Back then of course it was fine. But does that make it right ?

Oops, sorry. I got your post mixed up with NB.

If religion would get the hell out of government I'd be more than happy to leave it alone. Sadly that doesn't seem likely to happen in the near future.

To be fair to atheist, I also don't like religious people spewing pamphlet slogan to crusade against everyone else that doesn't share their believes.

So you throw out a set of arguments that indicate you've already made an assumption as to what I object to, then in a snotty tone, ask me what I object to.

I think this threadjack has had enough attention.

i'm sure Jesus would be proud of your hypocrisy. You declare:

Being ignorant is pitiable. Being ignorant on purpose is contemptible.

and then you have the nerve to accuse me of being 'snotty' when I say, perfectly civily:

So please tell me, on which point are we willfully ignorant?

There were three points in Bottle's post which one could argue with, I considered each one and provided evidence for them. Why don't you stop whining about assumptions and say what you object to for once?

Of course, you won't, will you?

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals inside the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.
Source?
Okay I found it...

Link 1 (http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/09/14/the_problem_with_religion4_corrupting_the_minds_of_children)
Link 2 (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html)

It was conducted by the Israeli psychologist George Tamarin

Discussion of the "Chinese Joshua" study, with more details (though unfortunately not a cite to the primary literature):
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68648

"Besides, Islam's treatment of slaves was quite gentle compared to "Western slavery". "
Zayun2, Muslim slaves usually had their genitals sliced off.

Why in the fuck else would you conceive a religion? :rolleyes:

Good point but your language is a little blue:sniper:

Discussion of the "Chinese Joshua" study, with more details (though unfortunately not a cite to the primary literature):
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68648

"Besides, Islam's treatment of slaves was quite gentle compared to "Western slavery". "
Zayun2, Muslim slaves usually had their genitals sliced off.

Not what I've heard.

A Muslim slave was not forced to work out in fields, in blistering conditions, for years and years. Muslim slaves were essentially a part of the family, sometimes even inheritors. The slave of a king was of higher rank than someone of the middle class, whereas in the west, slaves were always the lowest class. The two are hardly comparable.

<snip>
and then you have the nerve to accuse me of being 'snotty' when I say, perfectly civily:
<snip>

When I initially read "So please tell me, on which point are we willfully ignorant?" I took it as a condescending accusation toward me. If I read that wrong, and I'll concede that I did, then I apologize for misinterpreting your words. There's been a lot of that sort of thing going around so I hope you can understand my mistake.

So if you're truly asking in the spirit of understanding, my answer is this: When Bottle first posted, she deliberately described the whole thing using the most vitriolic and distorted terms possible, to the point of false portrayal.

No Christian will dispute Mary's age as 14. I never have, yet several people have reacted as though we do. However, an accurate understanding of Scipture and history will show that this is not an example of rape, even by today's standards. (Yes, there are parts of the world-even the West, where marriage at 14 is possible legally. Back in the Classical period, it was the norm.)

As to consent. I haven't got my KJV with me ATM to find the relevant passages but Mary is known to have responded to the Angel's message with an affirmative consent. Some people point to the phrasing of the Angel's words as indicitave of God's intention to make it happen regardless of Mary's reply, but that would not be consistent with other Scriptural events in which the servants of God are willing participants in events. Even Jesus had to give explicit acknowledgement before His Crucifixion could take place.

Second, Jesus' sole purpose wasn't simply some horrible death and to suggest otherwise is to completely disregard every other thing He did. If all He did of any importance was to die on the cross, then his life would hardly have had any noteworthy events, as crucifixion was not an uncommon form of execution in the Roman Empire.

Again, for misunderstanding the meaning of your question, I apologize.

He was an immoral blasphemer. Luckily, there are some of us that are willing to fight the radical Muslims. I whole heartedly believe in a New Crusade against radical Islam and nations that support radical Islam.
If I had my way, I'd give weapons to Christians the world over and have our own insurgents. Long Live the New Crusade!

Wow...I was hoping your posts in II weren't based off of your real beliefs...Guess I was wrong. I'm sure Jesus would totally approve of your violent attitude.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mahatma Gandhi

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

If Genghis Khan had founded a religion it would have dominated Asia and still would today.

Not what I've heard.

A Muslim slave was not forced to work out in fields, in blistering conditions, for years and years. Muslim slaves were essentially a part of the family, sometimes even inheritors. The slave of a king was of higher rank than someone of the middle class, whereas in the west, slaves were always the lowest class. The two are hardly comparable.

And how many slaves of the Sultan/Caliph were there? Comparatively not that many. Most Muslim slaves were soldiers who got sent out to get slaughtered on the battlefield. Though I will admit some Muslim slaves did get better treatment than black slaves who were universally shitted on. Even so, the pre-Western Islamic slave trade was very destructive, if not as destructive as the Western slave trade.

A book review of a study on the subject:
Eunuchs, Caliphs, and Sultans (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80325447.html)

And how many slaves of the Sultan/Caliph were there? Comparatively not that many. Most Muslim slaves were soldiers who got sent out to get slaughtered on the battlefield. Though I will admit some Muslim slaves did get better treatment than black slaves who were universally shitted on. Even so, the pre-Western Islamic slave trade was very destructive, if not as destructive as the Western slave trade.

I'm not arguing that it(slavery) was/is good, rather that Islamic treatment of slaves (at the time of Muhammed) was ahead of its time.

Wow...I was hoping your posts in II weren't based off of your real beliefs...Guess I was wrong. I'm sure Jesus would totally approve of your violent attitude.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mahatma Gandhi


Pacifism is a wonderful thing, as is cotton candy clouds and marshmellow dreams. But, there is only one thing wrong with that.
You tend to forget a little incident involving a plane flying into a building filled with people..Gee, yeah, 9-11. So how am I supposed to respond?
Negotiate? There terms are easy; convert to Islam or die. The Muslims that don't feel this way I have no beef with. Unfortunately, there not the ones who take target practice at crosses or attack Churches or kill people for converting to other religions.
Give in? Oh sure. I suppose I could convert. I could become Muslim, hell, we all could, and just give in. Justy lay down and let them kill people willy nilly and force us to live by shari'a laws.
What's left? FIGHT! We fight for the right to believe (or not), to allow Christians the world wide to worship in peace, for priests and ministers not to be killed. We fight because we don't want to be overrun by militant Islam. We fight because unless we do, they WILL be back, and they intend to KILL us!
So, please, save your absolute pacifism for a world that dosen't exist. In essensce, you're the type of person who would have dealt with Hitler or surrendered to Mussolini. Pacifism is nice, but it dosen't work well when there willing to run into trains and blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings.
I won't compromise with those who would kill me. My response is to pray for the safety of the innocents, and at the same time to load my assault rifle. At the end of the day, there is no more negotiating with Osama or Al Queda then there was with Hitler, or Stalin or Mussolini. It comes to this: fight (and possibly live), or surrender and live your life as a slave.

I don't think there's anything to stop a butcher from being a prophet and vice versa.

I'm not arguing that it(slavery) was/is good, rather that Islamic treatment of slaves (at the time of Muhammed) was ahead of its time.

Like "You can have sex with your slave anytime you want"?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050
033.050
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Not only POWs but Allah, the oft-forgiving and most merciful, made it lawful for Muhammed to marry first cousins (both parallel and cross). And even that was not enough for the poor prophet (pbuh and all). Muhammed actually married Zainab Bint Jahsh, the wife of his adopted son Zaid, after he got her divorced from Zaid.

Like "You can have sex with your slave anytime you want"?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050


Not only POWs but Allah, the oft-forgiving and most merciful, made it lawful for Muhammed to marry first cousins (both parallel and cross). And even that was not enough for the poor prophet (pbuh and all). Muhammed actually married Zainab Bint Jahsh, the wife of his adopted son Zaid, after he got her divorced from Zaid.

I was asserting that it was better than western slavery at the time. I don't doubt owners could have sex whenever they wanted with their slaves in the West either.

And the children from these marriages?

The Ahmadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya) sect of Muslims believe that their founder, who taught in the Punjab during the later decades of the 19th century & in the early 20th century, was actually a new prophet "in the spirit of Mohammed"... but members of the older sects don't consider them to be true Muslims, and sometimes persecute them: In Pakistan this persecution is supported by the government, which has passed discriminatory legislation against them.

I am aware of that. The Deobandis from the area think that it is a British conspiracy to divide muslims. As soon as Maududi and co set up camp in Pakistan, they passed anti-Ahmadi legislation, making it illegal for Ahmadis to call themselves muslims and indulged in anti-Ahmadi riots....u know the usual peaceful stuff.

As a result, Abdus Salam, the first muslim Nobel prize winner, has his epitaph reading "First ------ Nobel Laureate" with the word muslim erased from the tombstone. He was an Ahmadi.

I was asserting that it was better than western slavery at the time. I don't doubt owners could have sex whenever they wanted with their slaves in the West either.

And the children from these marriages?

You are allowing the few instances of glorified slaves to cloud the grim reality of slavery in islamic world. There is a mountain range in NW Pakistan called Hindu Kush meaning "Hindu killer". It was named such after the countless hindu slaves who died there while being taken to Afg and ME for slave trade. I am sure they would have thought that it was better to be an islamic slave than a western slave.

I know that there was even a slave dynasty where the slave of the sultan became the next sultan. Just how the few instances of "house *iggers" having it good does not take away the horrible experiences of other black slaves...the few instances of palace slaves etc do not take away the sufferings of other slaves.

read my sig :p

I am a pro on outing the paedoprophet.

You are allowing the few instances of glorified slaves to cloud the grim reality of slavery in islamic world. There is a mountain range in NW Pakistan called Hindu Kush meaning "Hindu killer". It was named such after the countless hindu slaves who died there while being taken to Afg and ME for slave trade. I am sure they would have thought that it was better to be an islamic slave than a western slave.

I know that there was even a slave dynasty where the slave of the sultan became the next sultan. Just how the few instances of "house *iggers" having it good does not take away the horrible experiences of other black slaves...the few instances of palace slaves etc do not take away the sufferings of other slaves.

But it supports that their overall condition was still better.

For example, here is what he did to the poor underage Aisha when he died:

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 144:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that during his fatal ailment, Allah's Apostle, used to ask his wives, "Where shall I stay tomorrow? Where shall I stay tomorrow?" He was looking forward to Aisha's turn. So all his wives allowed him to stay where he wished, and he stayed at 'Aisha's house till he died there. 'Aisha added: He died on the day of my usual turn at my house. Allah took him unto Him while his head was between my chest and my neck and his saliva was mixed with my saliva.


the dirty old man wanted to die with a hard on it would seem! He had to have a peice of that sweet 16 year old ass(she was 16 when he died, 9 when he first banged her) before going out of this world.



Here is more of what he did to his young wife, and his other wives:

Sahih Bukhari Vol.1 Book.6, Number.299 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to FONDLE anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

Sahih Bukhari Vol.7 Book.62 Number.6 Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.

Sahih Bukhari: Narrated ‘Aisha that Sauda bint Zam’ah gave up her turn to ‘Aisha, and so the prophet used to give ‘Aisha both her day and the day of Sauda


Now lets look at how he felt about other humans(besides women..i'll get back to women later on)
Sahih AL-Bukhari. Vol.8, Book # 80, Number 753. says Narrated Anas bin Malik:The prophet said,The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him,'' or said something similar.

I guess that means there are no truly freed slaves, under the unholy prophet of Iblis..erm Allah.

alright, so Mohammad the great came to bring monotheism to the arabs right? Wrong:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 680:

Quote:
Narrated Az-Zubair bin 'Arabi:

A man asked Ibn 'Umar about the touching of the Black Stone. Ibn 'Umar said, "I saw Allah's Apostle touching and kissing it." The questioner said, "But if there were a throng (much rush) round the Ka'ba and the people overpowered me, (what would I do?)" He replied angrily, "Stay in Yemen (as that man was from Yemen). I saw Allah's Apostle touching and kissing it."

Looks like he worshiped the ka'ba, which muslims still do today.(they bow towards it during salaat, saying allahu akbar, God is great)


Now, here is a contradiction in revelation in al quraan that Mo mo made:
033.036
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.

SHAKIR: And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.

Now, reading it alone doesn't look like its that bad. But, the quraan clearly says that Allah ta ala has no partners and to say that any man is equal is shirk, or simply put, blasphemy! Mohammed the shirker :p

Speaking of the quran, here is another verse that mo mo made regarding women:
Surat 2 ayat 223:
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like..

yes! I can just PLOW into my woman if i feel like it.

Anyways, there was some posts I made a few weeks back in the Mohammad teddy bear thread dealing with the paedoprophet. You can look that up to see alot of nice little things about mo mo that Muslims don't want to say, or probably even know about.

Here is a link too:
http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=72

...
Speaking of the quran, here is another verse that mo mo made regarding women:
Surat 2 ayat 223:
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like..

yes! I can just PLOW into my woman if i feel like it.

Anyways, there was some posts I made a few weeks back in the Mohammad teddy bear thread dealing with the paedoprophet. You can look that up to see alot of nice little things about mo mo that Muslims don't want to say, or probably even know about.

Here is a link too:
http://www.investigateislam.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=72

I'm not going to even bother responding to Bukhari, nor your clearly biased website. I will address the ayat however.

(2:223) It is not saying to do what you wish with your wives, but that it is permitted to have sex when or where you want with your wives, which is rather different.

Wouldn't that be "consumated" rather than "consumed"?

Really guys,... what are you trying to achieve by this character attacks to Mohammad? That extremist would suddenly open their eyes, and say "wow thank you Zilam, for showing us!"? Snow ball's chance in hell, but, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

I know that there was even a slave dynasty where the slave of the sultan became the next sultan. Just how the few instances of "house *iggers" having it good does not take away the horrible experiences of other black slaves...the few instances of palace slaves etc do not take away the sufferings of other slaves.

If you're talking about the Mamluks, it most definitely was not an instance of "house niggers" having it good. They were slave soldiers and revolted, replacing the politically weak regime with their own.

I'm not going to even bother responding to Bukhari, nor your clearly biased website. I will address the ayat however.

(2:223) It is not saying to do what you wish with your wives, but that it is permitted to have sex when or where you want with your wives, which is rather different.

Its saying that you wife has to have sex with you any time you want, and I can show you other places where it says that if a women denies a man of sex, then she will be cursed by angels until morning.

and why don't you accept bukhari? Its one of the more accurate and "acceptable" hadiths. So much so, that the local MSA and its Imam kept quoting it to me trying to make me "revert" to Islam.

Immoral, crazy idotic butcher. He once thought he was crazy but then he said that the angel Gabriel came down and told him otherwise. Man, what has HE been smoking?:p

And if you don't accept Bukari as reliable, then you might accept something by the father of kittens, abu huraira, no? Maybe see how silly your religion is when your prophet says that, according to Abu huraira, that when you pray salaat shaytan will come and pluck your butt hair, or something to that extent(i'll have to find a link to that hadith in a minute).


And if you don't accept the site, then fine. He lables all the hadiths and ayats and refers to scholars and such..

If you want to, you can even talk to him RIGHT NOW, on paltalk...his room is called "Why we arab are converting to Jesus Christ" He was a former muslim, of arabic descent, and so far, he has converted about 5 or 6 people just in the first few days of this new year. He will show you the filth of Islam. So i dare you to go and debate him

Immoral, crazy idotic butcher. He once thought he was crazy but then he said that the angel Gabriel came down and told him otherwise. Man, what has HE been smoking?:p

Originally he thought he was possessed by a jinn, but then Khadijah, his first wife, told him other wise.

Some modern psychologists have reviewed some of the things he said that happened when he recieved the so called revelations, and for the most part, they conclude that he likely had temporal lobe epilepsy.

Its saying that you wife has to have sex with you any time you want, and I can show you other places where it says that if a women denies a man of sex, then she will be cursed by angels until morning.

and why don't you accept bukhari? Its one of the more accurate and "acceptable" hadiths. So much so, that the local MSA and its Imam kept quoting it to me trying to make me "revert" to Islam.

Lets see it then.

Because from what I have seen, people tend to use the Hadith to justify their actions, regardless of what they be. Essentially, one can find someone's writings that completely contradict those of another. So indeed, why should I rely on them, and which should I rely on? I choose not to rely on the Hadith, but on my own conscience.

Pacifism is a wonderful thing, as is cotton candy clouds and marshmellow dreams. But, there is only one thing wrong with that.
You tend to forget a little incident involving a plane flying into a building filled with people..Gee, yeah, 9-11. So how am I supposed to respond?
Negotiate? There terms are easy; convert to Islam or die. The Muslims that don't feel this way I have no beef with. Unfortunately, there not the ones who take target practice at crosses or attack Churches or kill people for converting to other religions.
Give in? Oh sure. I suppose I could convert. I could become Muslim, hell, we all could, and just give in. Justy lay down and let them kill people willy nilly and force us to live by shari'a laws.
What's left? FIGHT! We fight for the right to believe (or not), to allow Christians the world wide to worship in peace, for priests and ministers not to be killed. We fight because we don't want to be overrun by militant Islam. We fight because unless we do, they WILL be back, and they intend to KILL us!
So, please, save your absolute pacifism for a world that dosen't exist. In essensce, you're the type of person who would have dealt with Hitler or surrendered to Mussolini. Pacifism is nice, but it dosen't work well when there willing to run into trains and blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings.
I won't compromise with those who would kill me. My response is to pray for the safety of the innocents, and at the same time to load my assault rifle. At the end of the day, there is no more negotiating with Osama or Al Queda then there was with Hitler, or Stalin or Mussolini. It comes to this: fight (and possibly live), or surrender and live your life as a slave.

I don't differentiate between fundie militant Islam and fundie militant Christianity. They're both equally deplorable. Make hypotheticals about me condoning Nazism all you want; you don't know me. You don't know that. If religious fundamentalists of any kind attempted to invade my country and suppress my rights, I would fight them. In my own defense.

You're recommending "another Crusade." Pardon me if that gives me the image of one of the most unwarranted, aggressive wars in history. I don't plan on going halfway around the world to fight an aggressive war for a faith I don't follow.

I don't differentiate between fundie militant Islam and fundie militant Christianity. They're both equally deplorable. Make hypotheticals about me condoning Nazism all you want; you don't know me. You don't know that. If religious fundamentalists of any kind attempted to invade my country and suppress my rights, I would fight them. In my own defense.

You're recommending "another Crusade." Pardon me if that gives me the image of one of the most unwarranted, aggressive wars in history. I don't plan on going halfway around the world to fight an aggressive war for a faith I don't follow.
Can I second that? Killing somone is killing somone, no matter what you're religion. Of course, there is self defense but I can't think of any other excuses.

Know why I use terms like 'ignoramus' and 'contemptible' to describe what you're advocating?

What, precisely, am I advocating here?

Looking at this, Mary would not have wanted to get pregnant

Again, if God can create matter from nothing, create energy from the void... I'm sure He can impregnate a women without sexual means.


If so, then although outside the strict definition of rape, that being non-consensual sexual assault, it would be a criminal act under standards of law. Use of another person's body against their will.

Tell me, would you consider someone forcing another against her will to undergo in vitro fertilization and carry the fetus to term a criminal act? Sexual intercourse or no, that is the the bare facts. Whether she eventually liked the end result or not does not change the fact that such was done, according to you, against her will.

I see no reason to give special dispensation to some divine being that puts him or her above the law. No more than I would provide any to space aliens that came down and began butchering people for kicks.

If so, then although outside the strict definition of rape, that being non-consensual sexual assault, it would be a criminal act under standards of law. Use of another person's body against their will.

It seems pretty clear that Mary wanted to be the mother of God and fully consented to it.

It seems pretty clear that Mary wanted to be the mother of God and fully consented to it.

Based on the premise of Der Teutoniker assertion, the argument assumes there was no intention to be so at the beginning.

Pacifism is a wonderful thing, as is cotton candy clouds and marshmellow dreams. But, there is only one thing wrong with that.
You tend to forget a little incident involving a plane flying into a building filled with people..Gee, yeah, 9-11. So how am I supposed to respond?
Negotiate? There terms are easy; convert to Islam or die. The Muslims that don't feel this way I have no beef with. Unfortunately, there not the ones who take target practice at crosses or attack Churches or kill people for converting to other religions.
Give in? Oh sure. I suppose I could convert. I could become Muslim, hell, we all could, and just give in. Justy lay down and let them kill people willy nilly and force us to live by shari'a laws.
What's left? FIGHT! We fight for the right to believe (or not), to allow Christians the world wide to worship in peace, for priests and ministers not to be killed. We fight because we don't want to be overrun by militant Islam. We fight because unless we do, they WILL be back, and they intend to KILL us!
So, please, save your absolute pacifism for a world that dosen't exist. In essensce, you're the type of person who would have dealt with Hitler or surrendered to Mussolini. Pacifism is nice, but it dosen't work well when there willing to run into trains and blow themselves up or fly planes into buildings.
I won't compromise with those who would kill me. My response is to pray for the safety of the innocents, and at the same time to load my assault rifle. At the end of the day, there is no more negotiating with Osama or Al Queda then there was with Hitler, or Stalin or Mussolini. It comes to this: fight (and possibly live), or surrender and live your life as a slave.

WWII history not your thing eh?

He could've just been referring to the fact that Stalin later became the biggest enemy of the free world after WWII, at least I'm hoping lol. But his point still stands none the less.

It seems pretty clear that Mary wanted to be the mother of God and fully consented to it.

But is a girl of less than 14 years old capable of giving such consent ?

That is not even including the whole "you will have to flee your home, be hunted by forces that wish to kill your baby - and he will still eventually be put to death in a gruesome way if he fulfills his destiny" aspect of it. But feel free to take that into account when answering.

/thread

Good Post Cabra West :)

*gives slice of cheese cake*
Ohfuckingseconded.

But is a girl of less than 14 years old capable of giving such consent ? What do you tell a < 14 year old girl with two black eyes?
...nothing. Ya already done told her twice. :rolleyes:

Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris Facts. They're both getting old and retarded.
Wasn't that Chuck Norris just behind Huckabee at the latest rally?
:eek:

"Immoral".... After what moral standard?

If you're talking about the Mamluks, it most definitely was not an instance of "house niggers" having it good. They were slave soldiers and revolted, replacing the politically weak regime with their own.

I don't know about Mamluk history elsewhere, but following Moh'd Ghori's death (after he defeated Prithviraj Chauhan of Delhi and the fall of Delhi for the first time to muslims), his slave Qutbuddin Aibek came to power and founded the slave dynasty which was the first muslim dynasty of India proper. After his death, his slave Iltumish came to power. But the line of succession with slaves ended there and only descendants of Iltumish (including a woman, Razia, who became the first women ruler of an islamic nation) came to power since then...until that dynasty was overthrown.

I'm not going to even bother responding to Bukhari,

I personally don't trust Bukhari to have given a truthful account...and also Aisha...both were clearly biased and we can pick up the incoherency easily.

BUT...the FACT remains that overwhelming majority of muslims are sunnis, should be 90% approx IIRC, and they believe in Bukhari's hadiths.

The islamist type muslims never apologise or rationalise Muhammed's behavior when it comes to Aisha, the Hudaibiya treaty, the verses of war and hate of infidel etc. To them all these are correct and beyond even examination through the morals of today.

Muslims in west and other non-muslim societies feel compelled to rationalise the religion they believe in and the morals of the society they live in. So they come up with stuff like, well it did not happen that way, actually Aisha was 14, actually she was well developed at that age, actually she did not have sex...the marriage was only to get the alliance of Abu Bakr..see there were no kids, etc etc.

Given that we have no way of knowing what really happened in a conclusive way, I tend to not argue about what really happened, but rather about what people believe in and what does that mean or how does that affect me.

Fact remains, significant portion of sunni muslims do believe that Aisha was 6 or 9 when she was married. Because of this, child marriage is allowed in countries with Sharia. Even Shiite Iran used to have child marriage at age of 9 legally.

One Zayun2 saying Aisha was 18, she did not have sex, it was charity etc etc, does not change the reality of the above.

Source?

I only had it in print form, as I said, but after searching for a few hours I found it online as well : Love Thy Neighbour (http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13)
Scroll down to the headline "Moral Fallout"

Really? Haven't noticed, 'cause most of the time the self-proclaimed atheists I meet are those people that spewed pamphlet slogans that most of the time are only using atheistic views to get attention.

I like the "meh, so?" type atheists. I think they're really the true kind of atheists.

I find myself becoming more and more of a missionary atheist, though... I don't particularly like that, I have to admit, but I'm fascinated by the human brain/mind/consciousness, and that includes the desire/need/want for religion or some sort of higher power and deeper meaning. So I find myself talking to a lot of religious folks, and reading a lot of religious literature.
And to be perfectly honest, most of it scares the living daylight out of me. Not just the Christian stuff, of course, the Muslim stuff as well. And believe me, the Jews also have some scary xenophobia, misogyny and hatred going on in their religious writings.
I'm not that much into Eastern religions at this point, for the simple reason that I feel them to be too far removed culturally from my every day experiences to provide much insight.

To be honest, at this point I put religiousness of nice people down to a good deal of ignorance about the thing they confess belief in... I know this sounds very arrogant, but it's the only explanation I found to make sense of what I observe...

And to be perfectly honest, most of it scares the living daylight out of me. Not just the Christian stuff, of course, the Muslim stuff as well. And believe me, the Jews also have some scary xenophobia, misogyny and hatred going on in their religious writings.

What scares you about the Christian writings?(Just outta curiousity)

It's not any instinctive human moral that makes killing wrong - it's religious morality that makes killing wrong.


Ahh, so that's why I stabbed all those people the day after I quit going to church.

Anyhoo, I'm a bit worried by the, ah, everyone in the Bible/Torah/Koran did that sort of thing (so Mohamed's okay) line. I feel as if I'm on the fence despite having a pretty strong opinion. Yeah, Mohamed sets an incredibly bad example. Yeah, it's a bad example shared by key figures in all the related great monotheistic faiths. No, that doesn't mean it's frickin' well okay!

I'd say that killing people is bad, and leave it at that, but since I'm an atheist, I have, reputedly, no reason to believe so.

What scares you about the Christian writings?(Just outta curiousity)

Apart from almost everything in the OT? Paul, for example.

Ahh, so that's why I stabbed all those people the day after I quit going to church.

Anyhoo, I'm a bit worried by the, ah, everyone in the Bible/Torah/Koran did that sort of thing (so Mohamed's okay) line. I feel as if I'm on the fence despite having a pretty strong opinion. Yeah, Mohamed sets an incredibly bad example. Yeah, it's a bad example shared by key figures in all the related great monotheistic faiths. No, that doesn't mean it's frickin' well okay!

I'd say that killing people is bad, and leave it at that, but since I'm an atheist, I have, reputedly, no reason to believe so.

I don't think people were trying to say that since everyone did it, it's ok.
On the contrary, they were simply pointing out the immoral behaviour was not limited to the prophet of Islam, but rather can be found with any religious leader or prophet, regardless of the specific religion.

I don't differentiate between fundie militant Islam and fundie militant Christianity. They're both equally deplorable. Make hypotheticals about me condoning Nazism all you want; you don't know me. You don't know that. If religious fundamentalists of any kind attempted to invade my country and suppress my rights, I would fight them. In my own defense.

You're recommending "another Crusade." Pardon me if that gives me the image of one of the most unwarranted, aggressive wars in history. I don't plan on going halfway around the world to fight an aggressive war for a faith I don't follow.

Umm.. you realize a Muslim can practice his or her religion in peace here, but not vicea versa in many Muslim nations? Your aware of this, right?

There is no compromising. How do you compromise with someone that only gives you the option of not allowing you to practice your religion or converting to Islam.
Besides, if there going to ACCUSE us of a Crusade, so be it. If I am going to be made to be guilty of something, I might as well be in for a pound as much as a penny. They say were Crusaders. Fine. We'll give them what they desire, in spades.
Aggressive? I don;t think the Pope or any Christian church ever commanded it's followers to run into a cafe and blow it's self to bits or fly planes into buildings. They did. Don't try to confuse it with weasel words. There is a BIG difference.
If you sock me in the head and I hit you back, YOU started it. As long as I did not do anything to threaten you or yours, you had no right to strike me. But..once you have, I am going to hit you back. HUGE difference. Whatever Bin Laudens or the radical Muslims beef is, it wasn't with those people in the Twin Towers or the train they blew up in Madrid.
So now their beef has become OUR beef. They threw the first punch, and it is incumbent on us to strike back. If that means we borrow a couple plays from their gamebook, fine. We don't have to target people indiscrimanately, but we can support those who will oppose those governments, we can give arms to oppressed religious and ethnic minorities, we can bring the fight to them.
They got the first lick in. The only way we will lose is if the appeasers, the half hearted and the fence sitters win the day. Yes, it's nasty buisness.
If we were able to negotiate a peace, I'd be all for it. If we could compromise, I would support that. We are not given those choices.The only choice they have given us is victory or destruction. So be it. I choose victory, and if that means that we use and supply armanents to Christians who are willing to fight and undermine these regimes, I'm all for it.

Umm.. you realize a Muslim can practice his or her religion in peace here, but not vicea versa in many Muslim nations? Your aware of this, right?

There is no compromising. How do you compromise with someone that only gives you the option of not allowing you to practice your religion or converting to Islam.
Besides, if there going to ACCUSE us of a Crusade, so be it. If I am going to be made to be guilty of something, I might as well be in for a pound as much as a penny. They say were Crusaders. Fine. We'll give them what they desire, in spades.
Aggressive? I don;t think the Pope or any Christian church ever commanded it's followers to run into a cafe and blow it's self to bits or fly planes into buildings. They did. Don't try to confuse it with weasel words. There is a BIG difference.
If you sock me in the head and I hit you back, YOU started it. As long as I did not do anything to threaten you or yours, you had no right to strike me. But..once you have, I am going to hit you back. HUGE difference. Whatever Bin Laudens or the radical Muslims beef is, it wasn't with those people in the Twin Towers or the train they blew up in Madrid.
So now their beef has become OUR beef. They threw the first punch, and it is incumbent on us to strike back. If that means we borrow a couple plays from their gamebook, fine. We don't have to target people indiscrimanately, but we can support those who will oppose those governments, we can give arms to oppressed religious and ethnic minorities, we can bring the fight to them.
They got the first lick in. The only way we will lose is if the appeasers, the half hearted and the fence sitters win the day. Yes, it's nasty buisness.
If we were able to negotiate a peace, I'd be all for it. If we could compromise, I would support that. We are not given those choices.The only choice they have given us is victory or destruction. So be it. I choose victory, and if that means that we use and supply armanents to Christians who are willing to fight and undermine these regimes, I'm all for it.

So what you're basically saying is, in order to fight them, you're going to imitate them? Brilliant, Holmes...

1)Umm.. you realize a Muslim can practice his or her religion in peace here, but not vicea versa in many Muslim nations? Your aware of this, right?

2)There is no compromising. How do you compromise with someone that only gives you the option of not allowing you to practice your religion or converting to Islam.
3)Besides, if there going to ACCUSE us of a Crusade, so be it. If I am going to be made to be guilty of something, I might as well be in for a pound as much as a penny. They say were Crusaders. Fine. We'll give them what they desire, in spades.
4)Aggressive? I don;t think the Pope or any Christian church ever commanded it's followers to run into a cafe and blow it's self to bits or fly planes into buildings. They did. Don't try to confuse it with weasel words. There is a BIG difference.
5)If you sock me in the head and I hit you back, YOU started it. As long as I did not do anything to threaten you or yours, you had no right to strike me. But..once you have, I am going to hit you back. HUGE difference. Whatever Bin Laudens or the radical Muslims beef is, it wasn't with those people in the Twin Towers or the train they blew up in Madrid.
6)So now their beef has become OUR beef. They threw the first punch, and it is incumbent on us to strike back. If that means we borrow a couple plays from their gamebook, fine. We don't have to target people indiscrimanately, but we can support those who will oppose those governments, we can give arms to oppressed religious and ethnic minorities, we can bring the fight to them.
7)They got the first lick in. The only way we will lose is if the appeasers, the half hearted and the fence sitters win the day. Yes, it's nasty buisness.
8)If we were able to negotiate a peace, I'd be all for it. If we could compromise, I would support that. We are not given those choices.The only choice they have given us is victory or destruction. So be it. I choose victory, and if that means that we use and supply armanents to Christians who are willing to fight and undermine these regimes, I'm all for it.

1) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

And of course, I'm sure I could find even more if you want to talk about Europe.

2) If you're not willing to compromise, why would anyone compromise with you anyways? You haven't given any reference as to where these countries have aggressed against the US.

3) Lol

4) Don't ever use the word ever. You're ignoring the real crusades, and the numerous atrocities sanctioned by the Pope.

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

So when you give weapons to people to fight the Soviets, and they decide to turn against you, it's not your fault?

6) Then how will you target people? Are you going to drop bombs? Are you going to be using grenades, tanks, artillery? How are you going to tell who's "radical" (the proper word being fundamental/reactionary) and who isn't?

7) So you're going to stand by 9-11 being the beginning of this all?

8) Who are these people you're saying don't want compromise? How will you find them amongst all the people that seek peace? Are these Christians you're arming really good Christians, I thought you guys didn't support violence and stuff, right? Lets see some links too, it's always good when you're making assertions.

Oh, and please don't run away...

To be honest, at this point I put religiousness of nice people down to a good deal of ignorance about the thing they confess belief in... I know this sounds very arrogant, but it's the only explanation I found to make sense of what I observe...

Eh, everybody has their own opinion on what they observe,... I may seem to care what people thought of me, but I think deep down there's a resounding "MEH" echoing in the bowels of my subconciousness.

To each their own personal mysteries, I say, if somebody tells you it's pretty arrogant,... then they probably are just jealous :D (... to elaborate, lack of creativity and sense of wonder...)

I find myself becoming more and more of a missionary atheist, though... I don't particularly like that, I have to admit, but I'm fascinated by the human brain/mind/consciousness, and that includes the desire/need/want for religion or some sort of higher power and deeper meaning. So I find myself talking to a lot of religious folks, and reading a lot of religious literature.
And to be perfectly honest, most of it scares the living daylight out of me. Not just the Christian stuff, of course, the Muslim stuff as well. And believe me, the Jews also have some scary xenophobia, misogyny and hatred going on in their religious writings.
.
I have sort of the same problem: Most of the time when someone starts going on and on about their religion or/and the specific bullshit they believe in, I try to stay polite and everything, but its quite hard to just sit there and say nothing. So most of the time I just politely begin to question the person, just so that I have something to do, and in about every case so far it turned out, that they knew literally almost knothing about their religion or skillfully ignored it. Then one of two things can happen: Either the person hates me the rest of all eternity or they actually start to think and consider what I've said and, in the end, "converts" to atheism.
This way I managed to become the nemesis of about every Teacher I had in school and to gain a circle of friends fully free of anything resembling religion.

1) http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

And of course, I'm sure I could find even more if you want to talk about Europe.

2) If you're not willing to compromise, why would anyone compromise with you anyways? You haven't given any reference as to where these countries have aggressed against the US.

3) Lol

4) Don't ever use the word ever. You're ignoring the real crusades, and the numerous atrocities sanctioned by the Pope.

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

So when you give weapons to people to fight the Soviets, and they decide to turn against you, it's not your fault?

6) Then how will you target people? Are you going to drop bombs? Are you going to be using grenades, tanks, artillery? How are you going to tell who's "radical" (the proper word being fundamental/reactionary) and who isn't?

7) So you're going to stand by 9-11 being the beginning of this all?

8) Who are these people you're saying don't want compromise? How will you find them amongst all the people that seek peace? Are these Christians you're arming really good Christians, I thought you guys didn't support violence and stuff, right? Lets see some links too, it's always good when you're making assertions.

Oh, and please don't run away...


2) ANSWER: Syria and several other nations are known to support terrorism. It's part of their strategy. Iran too is known to support terrorism. Look at the situation in Lebanon. My answer is to return the favor to those nations. As for not compromising, the answer is real simple. We know they support terrorism, we know that these terrorist organizations target other nations, like Lebanon.
Al Queda is financed and given sancturary by other nations that speak out of both sidea of their mouth. Do you really believe that Bhuttoh was assasinated without inside help? Pleeeease! If you believe that, you're extremely naive.

3) ANSWER: No Comment, none necessary.

4) ANSWER: I'll use the term "Crusade", to connotate a pan-Christian movement to bear arms in the defense of religious freedom and to end aggressive attacks by Muslims, of whatever sectarian stripe, against Christians. I will also use it to connotate an aggressive campaing of insurgency, sabotage and resistance against governments (like Darfur) that have a tacit policy of attacking, brutalizing and killing Christians. Yes, this is a Crusade, a crusade for the survival and defense of Christians where they are endangered by intollerance and violent actions.
As for atrocities, unfortunately they happend. They should be avoided, but you also need to remember that Islam intended to invade overwhelmingly Christian Europe. Yes, some was sent by the Pope to regain Jerusalem, but we also were forced to fight to stop the INVASION of Islam into Europe. If there were atrocities,be assured the Christians were not the only ones that committed them. War is a horrible, vile evil.

6) ANSWER: We wil target radical/reactionary/militant Imams and assasinate them. We will attack infrastructure and blow up electrical installations and such. Industrial sabotage would also be a part of the strategy. Also included would be ambushing troops in guerrilla attacks and fading into the general population, e.t.c. The aim is not to kill people willy nilly, but to harrass and attack infrastructure and government troops at times of favorable oppourtunity.

7) ANSWER: Of course not. How far back you want to go? A hundred years? A thousand years? How about, as far as the problem with Israel and the Arabs, the problems with the son of Hagar, Abrahams concubine and Sarah's son? Shall we go back further?
The answer is, it dosen;t matter. If it was a one time event, and these organizations did not intend to do it again, we MIGHT forgive them of it. However, they have made it clear they intentions to continuously recreate that tragedy OVER and OVER again quite clear. Ergo, my response is to return the favor to them and the nations that tacitly and covertly support and give aid to these terrorists. If they wish to bring war here and hide, support and allow them to live in their nations, we will bring war THERE.

8) ANSWER: The people who do not wish to compromise are the radical Imams and the various militant Islamic groups. There desire is to attack the West and to brutalize and force people to convert in their nations. There are other religious groups that have been brutalized by them as well, like the Mandeans and others. I support the combatting of these radical, fascist forms of Islam with active, armed resistance.
"Good" Christians? Again, this is politics and strategy. I am sure you know of the term "Real Politicks", yes? Learn then the meaning of this phrase: "A people have no permanent friends, just permanent interests". They may be good, bad or indifferent. It matters not. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Also, Google "Just War doctrine". Once you have done that, perhaps you will understand.

2) ANSWER: Syria and several other nations are known to support terrorism. It's part of their strategy. Iran too is known to support terrorism. Look at the situation in Lebanon. My answer is to return the favor to those nations. As for not compromising, the answer is real simple. We know they support terrorism, we know that these terrorist organizations target other nations, like Lebanon.


You did not just quote lebanon, you are a total idiot, lebanon is the fault of 2 nations, france for creating lebanon and britain, for the sykes pikot act,if the arabs were not screwed over after WW1 then none of what is going on would have happened, had they not supported al saud, osama bin laden would not have risen to power, britain and france, would have actually been liked by arabs, and also it is american goverments fault for AL Qaeda since it was american need for oil that lead to the flow of petrodollars which financed the rise of wahabism in Islam, so everything in the middle east is the fault of all "christain goverments" that interfered to suit their own designs, and finally what terrorist organisation ? there is not any terrorist organistan in Lebanon

Apart from almost everything in the OT? Paul, for example.

You know I could accuse you (I don't of course) of being an anti Semite for that, because you're basically scared of him for being a watered down Jew. The whole point of his books were to attempt to apply the new non legalistic ethic to life, this was the first ever attempt, but it probably didn't go far enough, and he was constantly correcting himself throughout the books. The early church wasn't ready to completely detach themselves from the Jewish culture, so most of the questionable parts of Paul's writings were just echoing the Jewish culture and old laws. Also, in many of his books, he's writing as if the end of the world is very close, so many of his morals are based on pragmatic preparations for the end of the world (he even said that you shouldn't bother getting married in one of his earlier books). So it's unfair to really base Christianity on Paul.

2) ANSWER: Syria and several other nations are known to support terrorism. It's part of their strategy. Iran too is known to support terrorism. Look at the situation in Lebanon. My answer is to return the favor to those nations. As for not compromising, the answer is real simple. We know they support terrorism, we know that these terrorist organizations target other nations, like Lebanon.
Al Queda is financed and given sancturary by other nations that speak out of both sidea of their mouth. Do you really believe that Bhuttoh was assasinated without inside help? Pleeeease! If you believe that, you're extremely naive.
You might find a history of American actions in that general region interesting, regarding a Mr Mossadegh among other things. Suffice to say that the US is not exactly whiter than white in supporting terrorrist organisations etc.


4) ANSWER: I'll use the term "Crusade", to connotate a pan-Christian movement to bear arms in the defense of religious freedom and to end aggressive attacks by Muslims, of whatever sectarian stripe, against Christians. I will also use it to connotate an aggressive campaing of insurgency, sabotage and resistance against governments (like Darfur) that have a tacit policy of attacking, brutalizing and killing Christians. Yes, this is a Crusade, a crusade for the survival and defense of Christians where they are endangered by intollerance and violent actions.
As for atrocities, unfortunately they happend. They should be avoided, but you also need to remember that Islam intended to invade overwhelmingly Christian Europe. Yes, some was sent by the Pope to regain Jerusalem, but we also were forced to fight to stop the INVASION of Islam into Europe. If there were atrocities,be assured the Christians were not the only ones that committed them. War is a horrible, vile evil.

So muslims and christians committed atrocities, but the Christians were obviously the good guys?


7) ANSWER: Of course not. How far back you want to go? A hundred years? A thousand years? How about, as far as the problem with Israel and the Arabs, the problems with the son of Hagar, Abrahams concubine and Sarah's son? Shall we go back further?
The answer is, it dosen;t matter. If it was a one time event, and these organizations did not intend to do it again, we MIGHT forgive them of it. However, they have made it clear they intentions to continuously recreate that tragedy OVER and OVER again quite clear. Ergo, my response is to return the favor to them and the nations that tacitly and covertly support and give aid to these terrorists. If they wish to bring war here and hide, support and allow them to live in their nations, we will bring war THERE.
[/quote]
See point 2, you've actually been taking war there for quite awhile. Pre-emptive defence no doubt.


8) ANSWER: The people who do not wish to compromise are the radical Imams and the various militant Islamic groups. There desire is to attack the West and to brutalize and force people to convert in their nations. There are other religious groups that have been brutalized by them as well, like the Mandeans and others. I support the combatting of these radical, fascist forms of Islam with active, armed resistance.
"Good" Christians? Again, this is politics and strategy. I am sure you know of the term "Real Politicks", yes? Learn then the meaning of this phrase: "A people have no permanent friends, just permanent interests". They may be good, bad or indifferent. It matters not. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Also, Google "Just War doctrine". Once you have done that, perhaps you will understand.

Yes, the downside being the current problem in Afghanistan, where the US is now fighting insurgents it funded training and weapons for. I think that's called something coming back to bite you in the arse.

You know I could accuse you (I don't of course) of being an anti Semite for that, because you're basically scared of him for being a watered down Jew. The whole point of his books were to attempt to apply the new non legalistic ethic to life, this was the first ever attempt, but it probably didn't go far enough, and he was constantly correcting himself throughout the books. The early church wasn't ready to completely detach themselves from the Jewish culture, so most of the questionable parts of Paul's writings were just echoing the Jewish culture and old laws. Also, in many of his books, he's writing as if the end of the world is very close, so many of his morals are based on pragmatic preparations for the end of the world (he even said that you shouldn't bother getting married in one of his earlier books). So it's unfair to really base Christianity on Paul.

I'm not basing it on anything, but I have to assume, since Christians regard their bible as sacred scripture, that what is written in there does at least to some extend influence them (even if most of them today don't seem to believe even half of what's written in there, but still). So if I can't judge a religion by what it claims to be sacred and true, what would I judge it by otherwise?

I'm not basing it on anything, but I have to assume, since Christians regard their bible as sacred scripture

Here is the problem, they shouldn't.

So if I can't judge a religion by what it claims to be sacred and true, what would I judge it by otherwise?

Well, since different Christian sects vary so much, you can only really judge it on Jesus' teachings himself, because that's pretty much the only thing shared between all different sects. And that's where the problems lie, since a lot of it is a bit ambiguous, and he doesn't really say enough to formulate a proper doctrine.

Well, since different Christian sects vary so much, you can only really judge it on Jesus' teachings himself, because that's pretty much the only thing shared between all different sects. And that's where the problems lie, since a lot of it is a bit ambiguous, and he doesn't really say enough to formulate a proper doctrine.

Jesus said something about turn the other cheek, didn't he? I think it would be very hard put to find a single Christian sect that adheres to the idea of total non-violence ;)

Jesus said something about turn the other cheek, didn't he? I think it would be very hard put to find a single Christian sect that adheres to the idea of total non-violence ;)

Oh there are plenty, it's just that nobody hears or gives a shit about them.

Oh there are plenty, it's just that nobody hears or gives a shit about them.

Really? I haven't found a single one so far... can you give a few examples?

Really? I haven't found a single one so far... can you give a few examples?

Well, what exactly do you mean by total non violence?

Well, what exactly do you mean by total non violence?

Total non-violence... no physical violence, and no verbal violence.

Total non-violence... no physical violence, and no verbal violence.

Even, lets say... if your family is being slaughtered, and you're simply trying to defend you family? (if you were to even be against even this sort of violence, you would be against Jesus' teachings).

Even, lets say... if your family is being slaughtered, and you're simply trying to defend you family? (if you were to even be against even this sort of violence, you would be against Jesus' teachings).

Did I get Jesus' saying wrong then? It seemed a pretty straighforward message....

Did I get Jesus' saying wrong then? It seemed a pretty straighforward message....

If you were to quote one part of what Jesus said, and use it as an absolute law, that would be completely against what Jesus preaches. He was a pragmatist. He gave advice, not law. Most churches today oppose war, even the Catholic Church are against the Iraq war. But this doesn't necessarily mean they are against a defensive war, where they are defending their country from invasion. But there are probably even some small sects that would be against this.

If you were to quote one part of what Jesus said, and use it as an absolute law, that would be completely against what Jesus preaches. He was a pragmatist. He gave advice, not law. Most churches today oppose war, even the Catholic Church are against the Iraq war. But this doesn't necessarily mean they are against a defensive war, where they are defending their country from invasion. But there are probably even some small sects that would be against this.

So I'm up against that again, am I? ;)
Anytime Jesus/Mohammed/whoever said something that is too ideal or considered morally wrong today, we can disregard it or interpret it away? That makes religion basically a matter of interpretation, then?

So I'm up against that again, am I? ;)
Anytime Jesus/Mohammed/whoever said something that is too ideal or considered morally wrong today, we can disregard it or interpret it away? That makes religion basically a matter of interpretation, then?

I'm not disregarding it or interpreting it away. I am saying that it would be silly to universalise such a rule, in the same way as it would be silly to universalise any rule, and Jesus understood this. It has nothing to do with it being too ideal or moral (I find the idea of watching your family being killed and doing nothing indefensibly abhorrent anyway), since I would be saying the same thing if Jesus suggested that you shouldn't use fairy liquid to wash clothes.

It's not any instinctive human moral that makes killing wrong - it's religious morality that makes killing wrong.


Bullshit. Atheists are no more likely to go out killing people than Christians are.
What you are claiming is that anyone who lacks a religion cannot have any morals and would therefore kill with no moral objection, and would not have any moral objection to thye murder of a fellow human being.
I give myself as an example, I am an Atheist. I believe that killing is wrong, I can't even handle reading Night without throwing up at the description of mere children being used as target practise. Far more wide spread given the % of Atheists in Canada and its relatively low crime rate it is clear that Atheists do infact have morals. And the proof that even one has morals completely blows your theory.
Sorry.

To muslims around the world, Muhammed is an apostle and prophet of God. Yet, when we look at his life, it was filled with immoral actions, by anyone's standards. 12 marriages (one of which was a child of 6, and the marriage consumated at 9 years old), slaves, concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad, its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. So did he conceive his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money? Or do you think that he really may have been a prophet?

Don't limit yourself to the Koran, although that book is replete with intolerant and bloodthirsty commands. There's also the "traditions", i.e., the Hadith.

Compare and contrast:

Bukhari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. ( http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm )

John 8:3-11 (New American Standard Bible): The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

The answer is obvious.

Don't limit yourself to the Koran, although that book is replete with intolerant and bloodthirsty commands. There's also the "traditions", i.e., the Hadith.

Compare and contrast:

Bukhari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. ( http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm )

...

How about this?


It is said that once at the time of conquest, a singing girl was brought to al-Muhajir b. Abu Umayya who had been publicly singing satirical poems about Hadrat Abu Bakr. Muhajir got her hand amputated. When the Caliph heard this news, he was shocked and wrote a letter to Muhajir in the following words:

" I have learnt that you laid hands on a woman who had hurled abuses on me, and, therefore, got her hand amputated. God has not sought vengeance even in the case of polytheism, which is a great crime. He has not permitted mutilation even with regard to manifest infidelity. Try to be considerate and sympathetic in your attitude towards others in future. Never mutilate, because it is a grave offence. God purified Islam and the Muslims from rashness and excessive wrath. You are well aware of the fact that those enemies fell into the hands of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who had been recklessly abusing him; who had turned him out of his home; and who fought against him, but he never permitted their mutilation."

Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris Facts. They're both getting old and retarded.

When I first saw that I thought it said "Ebil Moslem Rants are like Chuck Norris. They're both getting old and retarded."

But it seems like you will be getting no kicks to the head tonight.

Why aren't we talking about sects any more? I like sects.

Why aren't we talking about sects any more? I like sects.

I like sects too, but whenever I bring up sects everyone leaves...:(

I like sects too, but whenever I bring up sects everyone leaves...:(
I suspect it's all in the accents and sock puppets.

Irony in motion:

:) Read the whole thing first.

Well, I finally read through the 12 pages of this thread and all I have learned is that trollery seems to be contagious. If the dose is pure enough, it will infect even normally sound posters. In this case, we start with anti-Muslim bigotry, and the immediate response is a bunch of anti-Christian bigotry, with a little anti-athiest and anti-theist bigotry lobs tossed in just for -- what? Equal time? But I have seen precious few balanced or well considered responses of any kind. Not really surprising. :rolleyes:

1) I had avoided getting into this thread earlier because the OP struck me as nothing but flamebait. It clearly has no purpose but to criticise the character of another religion's acknowledged founder. If the question were being posed by a Muslim to other Muslims for them to debate within the context of their own religious teachings, I would have been interested in it, but it wasn't, was it?

The fact is, if you are not a Muslim, then the character of the man called Mohammed is none of your damned business. If you want to criticise living Muslims for their real and current behavior, do so and do it honestly. But to attack (even by the OP's clumsy backhanded method) the very foundation of someone else's religion is not a legitimate argument. The only answer to it is, "What the fuck do you care, if it's not your religion?"

2) As for the arguments about whether Mary was raped: A lot of that came from posters who I respect and agree with on other topics, but this time, the rhetoric went over the line of good taste. Also, it is a strained and inelegant attempt at what amounts basically to a strawman -- inventing a scenario that does not, in fact, exist and never did, and which depends entirely on a gross misreading, misunderstanding, and misapplication of the literary language of religious texts (a style of figurative storytelling common to many religions).

First, to characterize the immaculate conception as rape, you must make a laundry list of unfounded assumptions and inappropriate comparisons. You must assume that any of it really happened or even was thought to have really happened, literally, as described. Then you must assume Mary's age. Then you must apply the American/European moral and legal standards of the 21st century to something which was written an unknown number of centuries ago in a completely different society. Second, after rewriting the story in such a way, you must then cast a god in the role of a human and bind that god by the same laws of both society and physics that bind human beings. I am amazed that people who show so little imagination in reading the original story can then show so much imagination in making up rules for someone else's god to follow. And what do you get for all your effort to twist yourselves into such knots? Just a feeble spit ball to shoot at Christians, nothing but a childish insult against their god.

Indeed, you prove that Christians and Muslim-bashers are not the only bigots or takers of cheap shots in this forum.

3) The bottom line on all this argument is that the fundamental tenets of any religion are of concern only to the followers of that religion. They are not the business of outsiders. If we wish to debate these matters, we should take care to do so respectfully, always mindful that we are trespassing on someone else's private territory. If we cannot do that, if all we can manage is to insult, belittle and attack, then I see no reason for this thread to continue. It provides no information, adds to no one's understanding of anything, and serves only to provoke anger and conflict.

Frankly, most of the posters to this thread should be ashamed of themselves. It is times like this that I am glad to be a polytheist and generally considered too unimportant to be dragged into what has become a thoroughly and embarrassingly debased public argument.

But if you wish my opinion, it is this: I don't care about Mohammed. I don't care about Jesus. I don't care whose prophet was naughty or nice. I don't give a rat's ass if both Muslims and Christians have been wasting their lives with nonsense all this time or not. And I wish that all of you -- bashers on all sides of the matter -- would just shut up about things that are none of your business anyway. Just once in a while, to let some air in.

Then you must apply the American/European moral and legal standards of the 21st century to something which was written an unknown number of centuries ago in a completely different society.

So ? We are not talking about mere men here. We are talking about the Prophet and the Divine Being itself respectively. Their behaviour is supposed to serve as an example for all time and be unchanging good. If it was good then, it should be good now.

If it isn't good now, then perhaps following them and their teachings now is unwise.

Well, you have to buy into ALL the premises of the story if you are going to criticize it. Did Mary consent? Quite volubly so, according to the story. Now, we presume that youngsters under a certain age do not have enough maturity to consent, but we draw the line at an arbitrary point, knowing that some mature earlier than others, because we're only human and don't want to get into the business of telepathically deciding in each case whether consent was given with full understanding. In this story, however, an omniscient being has decided that her consent was valid.

3) The bottom line on all this argument is that the fundamental tenets of any religion are of concern only to the followers of that religion. They are not the business of outsiders.

Unless they influence those believers' attitudes towards outsiders... as many Muslims' interpretation of their religion's fundamental tenet of 'Jihad' does.

So ? We are not talking about mere men here. We are talking about the Prophet and the Divine Being itself respectively. Their behaviour is supposed to serve as an example for all time and be unchanging good. If it was good then, it should be good now.

If it isn't good now, then perhaps following them and their teachings now is unwise.
The personal character of the man who is credited with having formulated the ideas is still not your concern.

If you want to argue with members of a certain religion that, in your opinion, their religious views are no longer in sync with the way people live, you may do so. It would be grossly rude and presumptuous of you, but at least it would not be an argument based solely on bigotry.

But all you are really arguing here is "you should question your religion because I don't like the stories I hear about its founder." Why should anyone care about that? Why should anyone give such a criticism as much attention as would be needed to tell you to mind your own business, or to suggest that maybe you should put your own house in order before criticizing others?

You know what I consider to be one of the biggest problems in the world today? It is the number of people who have an inflated notion of their own relative importance in the world, and who cannot bring themselves to know their place and keep to it when appropriate.

It is not your place to dictate to Muslims what kind of person they should be elevating to sacred status.

Unless they influence those believers' attitudes towards outsiders... as many Muslims' interpretation of their religion's fundamental tenet of 'Jihad' does.
No. As I have said, you may criticize the behavior of people today if you like, but nothing in the troubles of and around Islam today, nothing in the failings of Islam, justifies what amounts to nothing but an ad hominem attack against its founding prophet. If some, indeed many, Muslims behave badly now, that does not justify you behaving badly in your own right.

Then you must apply the American/European moral and legal standards of the 21st century to something...

I agree with this, and that also goes for the moral condemnation of Muhammad. And the failure of anyone to properly explain why we should judge him - or anyone living more than 1000 years ago - by those standards, make this thread worthless.

Muhammed did what he did. We can never know exactly what he himself did in the course of his life. But he definately created a religion which we have admittadly biased but probably fairly accurate sources was a whole lot better than pre-Islamic Arabic religions, much like how I'd prefer Christianity to guts of trees and diefied emperors any day of the week. It was a religion which, whatever you argue about what it caused, was followed by great scholars and historians. It was a religion that produced great people.

It was also a religion which produced horrible madmen. All religions do, and at this present time Islam is definately the worst offender. But I'd say it will take a lot more (something about "the nuclear destruction of the whole world") before it becomes a negative influence on humanity. Like Christianity and Religion in general, I'd say the scholarship and learning it inspired, the charity, and the consolation to millions of depairing people (and the, y'know, not ripping hearts out and setting fire to them) far outway the actions of the few horrible madmen.

I think where every Muslim in the world to turn into an ordinary modern moderate Christian, the world would be improved. This however is equally true of them all turning into moderate Muslims. The Taliban would probably turn into the Westboro Baptist Church. All I'm saying is that because of present circumstances (conservative Islam has a high following in areas notorious for being poor, tyrannical and ravaged by seven flavours of invasion) there are lots more horrible things happening because of Islam now. That doesn't make it fundamentally less of a good thing. Just practically.

Gone slightly off topic... my answer would be "he got a good thing oing, so I don't really care of Muhammed wanted to crash the world into the sun."

Note: Is agnostic.

I agree with this, and that also goes for the moral condemnation of Muhammad. And the failure of anyone to properly explain why we should judge him - or anyone living more than 1000 years ago - by those standards, make this thread worthless.
Good point. I agree.

Well, looking at the biblical prophets, one would have to come to the conclusions that they weren't all little cheerful cherubs, either.

I remember a famous little experiment conducted a while back in Israel. 150 children aged between 6 and 15 were given the story of Joshua and Jericho to read. Some of you might know it, but for those who don't : In this story, god tells Joshua to take the city by force, to kill every single man, woman and child he finds inside, kill all of the animals insid e the city, burn all the supplies and destroy absolutely everything. The only thing he's allowed to take away is the copper. Which Joshua goes and does.
The kids were asked if they though what Joshua did was right. The overwhelming majority (well over 80%) replied that, yes, of course it was the right and moral thing to do, as god had told him to do it. One or two said he should have maybe kept the animals and supplies and given them to the Isrealites.
The experiment then went on and gave the exact same story to another 150 kids, but with one small alteration : The story was now set in ancient China and Joshua was called General Li.
Suddenly, almost all the children agreed that the attack and genocide were totally and utterly morally wrong and abhorent, and that General Li was a war criminal and should be treated as such.

Religion has a way of distorting even the most instinctive human moral, and to proclaim the worst mass-murderers prophets and saints.

nice post... but some problems.

1) Joshua isn't a prophet. so how are you comparing his actions to those of Mohammad whom the Muslims claim Allah's prophet? the proper comparasion would be Jesus and Mohammad.

2) what other elements was changed in the retelling? just the names? so did this story also say General Li was told by his god to do this deed with the telling of his god's power being used to insure victory? or was more of the story changed?

I agree with this, and that also goes for the moral condemnation of Muhammad. And the failure of anyone to properly explain why we should judge him - or anyone living more than 1000 years ago - by those standards, make this thread worthless.

I to, have to agree with Muravyets, nice post Muravyets.

I am a pro on outing the paedoprophet.

DON'T "Vote for Paedo"?
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/gallery_Napoleon_Dynamite_1.jpg

Good point but your language is a little blue:sniper:
I consider most religions to be quite vulgar ... it's fairly appropriate.

because something big, invisible and impossible to say no to, taps you on the sholder and says YOU are going to channel ME for the rest of your miserable mortal life, and probably get screwed by your fellow mortal beings as every other one of my chosen channelers has been.

no, none of the founders of any of the dominant beliefs volunteered for the job, nor got anything good out of having it thrust upon them.

now i do seriously question any claim of this having made any of them infallabe either. but mohammid was, in a sense the first return of christ, just as christ was the return of moses and moses of abraham and abraham of noah and noah of those 18 begats, one after another, a thousand years apart on average, as these chosen channelers have continued to be, all the way back beyond the war between the fallowers of cain and able to supposedly adam in the garden of oldivoi some 25thousand years ago if you count all of them.

since mohammid we have had the twin revelation of the bab and baha'u'llah, again, their lives made anything but soft and large by their having been choosen. rejected as inevitably, each are, by the blind fanatics of each outpouring that comes before.

all having been chosen, by the same irrefusable force, whatever name their fallowers choose to invent for it.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, i don't fault anyone for their personal relationships to something that cleans their clock so thoroughly as to be permanently fucked up for the rest of their quizzical existence.
I DO fault people assuming that the answers for that one are the answers for all. And i also fault the one for portraying their personal experience as the answers for all.
That's the problem i was insinuating with religion.

nice post... but some problems.

1) Joshua isn't a prophet. so how are you comparing his actions to those of Mohammad whom the Muslims claim Allah's prophet? the proper comparasion would be Jesus and Mohammad.

2) what other elements was changed in the retelling? just the names? so did this story also say General Li was told by his god to do this deed with the telling of his god's power being used to insure victory? or was more of the story changed?

I posted the link to the experiment earlier in the thread. It would seem that nothing about the whole "God told me to do it" was changed, just names and locations.

And I always thought Joshua was one of the prophets? :confused:
Either way I think it would make little difference, he got an order form god an committed genocide.
Mohammed talked to god and married a child.

Moral : Don't believe everything you think god tells you. Rely on your own judgement. ;)

1) Joshua isn't a prophet. so how are you comparing his actions to those of Mohammad whom the Muslims claim Allah's prophet? the proper comparasion would be Jesus and Mohammad.the Christian premise is that Jesus is the son of God.

not a prophet.

Why aren't we talking about sects any more? I like sects.hmm

I could talk about the Mormon candidate: Mitt Romney.

The Mormon candidate says his family is not racist an to prove it he says he saw his Dad march with M Luther King.

He is prophet....
I firmly believe it (AND You can't force me to go other way, I have firmly!)