spot;1332124 wrote: Psychological damage to children comes in many forms, of which that example can be less traumatic than being bombed, shot at, orphaned, maimed, left to grow up surrounded by unexploded munitions and depleted uranium dust, all of which seem to be acceptable "collateral" damage in today's Western military exploits. It can be less traumatic than exposure to thousands of fictionalized deaths on television, to playing Grand Theft Auto and associated carnage computer games, there's a host of causes of mentally traumatic damage in modern society.
Children can suffer psychological and emotional damage at the hands of paedophiles which is so severe that their lives are ruined by the experience. If you doubt this then just read some of the accounts of victims of paedophile priests, for example. In these accounts it is not uncommon to read of individuals resorting to excessive use of alcohol and drugs as a means of coping with the chronic anguish, guilt and feelings of worthlessness produced by the sexual abuse they suffered as children. Many of them also indulge in extreme forms of self-harm (e.g., self-mutilation).
What you are seeking to do in the above post, spot, is diminish the psychological and emotional suffering of paedophilia by embedding it among other forms of suffering endured by children. By trivialising paedophilia in this way, you have insulted the victims of paedophilia.
spot wrote: You've walked past several questions I've posed in this thread. Par for the course, that. Would you like me to repeat them or would you prefer to go back and pick them up yourself?
Stop being so self-centred. I’ll respond to them after I've responded to other contributors to this thread.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1332163 wrote: Such a one sided presentation is not given to promote discussion so the answer to your question is a definite yes, it does cause offense.
In this thread, Bryn, you have continually bleated that the OP causes offence. Offence to whom?
In this thread, Bryn, you have continually bleated that the OP causes offence. Offence to whom?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332188 wrote: In this thread, Bryn, you have continually bleated that the OP causes offence. Offence to whom?
I have also repeatedly explained why the OP causes offence - any comments or just snide remarks about bleating?
I have also repeatedly explained why the OP causes offence - any comments or just snide remarks about bleating?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332185 wrote: What you are seeking to do in the above post, spot, is diminish the psychological and emotional suffering of paedophilia by embedding it among other forms of suffering endured by children. By trivialising paedophilia in this way, you have insulted the victims of paedophilia.You've gone quite a distance from under-age marriage at this stage. You're bringing in modern-day Western instances of non-consensual abuse. I don't see that as closely related to Ayisha or any other child-bride instances from distant history.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
fuzzywuzzy;1332153 wrote: As usual it depends on which official writer you want to believe and which power base enforces that writer to document what the 'elites' want to portray their own world as.
To believe that every single mother or father approved of sending their children off into marriages at the age of twelve in the 12th century is ridiculas. . Again what is legal or religiously required (history in this instance being written by monks and scribes of noblemen) does not always reflect the common attitude of the entire society itself. I doubt whether I can place myself mentally in the place of anyone in 12th century England. You seem to be suggesting that despite there being no written evidence from the time expressing disapproval or any subsequent historian drawing such a conclusion, you can come to that conclusion yourself and advance it as evidence. I'm not sure why I should believe it.
Your "to believe that every single mother or father approved" is obvious, I've not suggested otherwise and it's not been my position, I'm not sure why you're making that comment at all.
It's like someone mentioned earlier that people died younger . That is a commonly held myth, and a walk around any old cemetary will confirm this myth is seconds.
There you're certainly disagreeing with extensive research by legitimate historians. Statistical evidence of the change in average lifespan over the last thousand years is, I'd have thought, irrefutable.
To believe that every single mother or father approved of sending their children off into marriages at the age of twelve in the 12th century is ridiculas. . Again what is legal or religiously required (history in this instance being written by monks and scribes of noblemen) does not always reflect the common attitude of the entire society itself. I doubt whether I can place myself mentally in the place of anyone in 12th century England. You seem to be suggesting that despite there being no written evidence from the time expressing disapproval or any subsequent historian drawing such a conclusion, you can come to that conclusion yourself and advance it as evidence. I'm not sure why I should believe it.
Your "to believe that every single mother or father approved" is obvious, I've not suggested otherwise and it's not been my position, I'm not sure why you're making that comment at all.
It's like someone mentioned earlier that people died younger . That is a commonly held myth, and a walk around any old cemetary will confirm this myth is seconds.
There you're certainly disagreeing with extensive research by legitimate historians. Statistical evidence of the change in average lifespan over the last thousand years is, I'd have thought, irrefutable.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
fuzzywuzzy;1332151 wrote: This thread interests me not because of the content but the rush to hush it over.
Paedophilia thrives on silence, fuzzy. For example, paedophile priests flourish within the Catholic Church because so many within this institution - from top to bottom - prefer to keep quiet about it. By doing so, they are colluding with their paedophilic brethren.
Paedophilia thrives on silence, fuzzy. For example, paedophile priests flourish within the Catholic Church because so many within this institution - from top to bottom - prefer to keep quiet about it. By doing so, they are colluding with their paedophilic brethren.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
QUOTE=fuzzywuzzy;1332156]Okay you've said it now...rubber bondage suit? Come on, cough up the goss!!!
Have a look at some of glaswegian's threads, there is a oicti=ure of him in one. He looks like a real balloon. He at the very least trawls for some very odd pictures, although he may not actually possess a rubber suit. I don't really want to know either way.
Umm you may not have noticed but it's the norm now. Always has been. Your mother , your grandmothers mother etc.
Oh I have noticed, I have memories of just how interesting such things were as a teenager. A much older male or female and a child is a bit different from two teenagers roughly the same age doing what is natural, one is abuse of power and one isn't.
posted by glaswegian
In this thread, Bryn, you have continually bleated that the OP causes offence. Offence to whom?
I actually agree with bryn to some extent. It's a cheap shot to get a reaction and stir up hostility just as it was with falwell. You don't have the justification of thinking islam evil however. It's easy enough to point fingers at christian characters in the bible and the incest, infanticide, rape, child sacrifice that all feature in the old testament. The christian faith itself is founded on a father sacrificing his son by allowing him to be tortured and killed in a particularly possible way - Or it was a masochistic episode depending on which particular version you happen to believe. Let's not fight about that.
It's a pointless diatribe you are engaged upon. There are many who think children and young adults should be beaten when they misbehave - witness the calls for corporal punishment for petty offenders. Are they paedophiles? or just concerned for the welfare of children. Would you tolerate the return of the tawse to restore discipline in scottish schools or see it as abuse? Although given your predilection for rubber suits maybe I shouldn't ask. Child abuse and sex trafficking are serious issues in the modern world, in a way you detract from the issue.
Why does a ten thousand year old story of a bronze age tribe cause such trouble in the 21st century? All over the world people are getting upset because a priest in florida is going to burn a copy. That too is designed to get a reaction. That he wants to do it and others want to set fire to him in retaliation is a tragedy of the 21st century. Most people don't want to go to war over such things, yet we are being sucked in. Hopefully centuries from now people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.
Have a look at some of glaswegian's threads, there is a oicti=ure of him in one. He looks like a real balloon. He at the very least trawls for some very odd pictures, although he may not actually possess a rubber suit. I don't really want to know either way.
Umm you may not have noticed but it's the norm now. Always has been. Your mother , your grandmothers mother etc.
Oh I have noticed, I have memories of just how interesting such things were as a teenager. A much older male or female and a child is a bit different from two teenagers roughly the same age doing what is natural, one is abuse of power and one isn't.
posted by glaswegian
In this thread, Bryn, you have continually bleated that the OP causes offence. Offence to whom?
I actually agree with bryn to some extent. It's a cheap shot to get a reaction and stir up hostility just as it was with falwell. You don't have the justification of thinking islam evil however. It's easy enough to point fingers at christian characters in the bible and the incest, infanticide, rape, child sacrifice that all feature in the old testament. The christian faith itself is founded on a father sacrificing his son by allowing him to be tortured and killed in a particularly possible way - Or it was a masochistic episode depending on which particular version you happen to believe. Let's not fight about that.
It's a pointless diatribe you are engaged upon. There are many who think children and young adults should be beaten when they misbehave - witness the calls for corporal punishment for petty offenders. Are they paedophiles? or just concerned for the welfare of children. Would you tolerate the return of the tawse to restore discipline in scottish schools or see it as abuse? Although given your predilection for rubber suits maybe I shouldn't ask. Child abuse and sex trafficking are serious issues in the modern world, in a way you detract from the issue.
Why does a ten thousand year old story of a bronze age tribe cause such trouble in the 21st century? All over the world people are getting upset because a priest in florida is going to burn a copy. That too is designed to get a reaction. That he wants to do it and others want to set fire to him in retaliation is a tragedy of the 21st century. Most people don't want to go to war over such things, yet we are being sucked in. Hopefully centuries from now people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332154 wrote: Morality depends on your perspective.
If morality depends on one’s perspective, gmc, then what you are subscribing to is moral relativism.
What this means in effect is this:
The members of one culture have no right to pass judgement on the members of any other culture - past or present - because morality is simply a matter of the cultural norms and social mores which obtain in a given culture at a given time. In other words, all cultures are morally equivalent with no culture being morally higher than another in terms of its norms, mores, laws, customs and the behaviour of its members.
Now let’s apply this way of thinking of yours to a form of behaviour that occurs regularly within certain Islamic communities: namely, gang-raping women as punishment for perceived sexual misbehaviour - or ‘honour rapes’ as they are called by Muslims.
Salman Rushdie reported on one such case as follows:
'In Honour-And-Shame cultures such as those of India and Pakistan, male honour resides in the sexual probity of women, and the “shaming of women dishonours all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan’s powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an “honour rape, intended to punish a relative of Ms Mukhtar for having been seen with a Mastoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.
Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman’s best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.’ Salman Rushdie, The Times, 18th July 2005
According to you and other contributors to this thread, gmc, we have no right to pass judgement on the gang-raping of women in Muslim communities because this kind of behaviour is just a matter of cultural norms and social mores¦just a matter of moral perspective. This is how they do things. We just happen to do things differently.
This is not my view. I think the gang-raping of women as punishment in Islamic communities is a moral outrage which should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
You can read Salman Rushdie’s article about 'honour-rapes' here:
Where is the honour in this vile code that condemns women to die in shame? | Salman Rushdie - Times Online
If morality depends on one’s perspective, gmc, then what you are subscribing to is moral relativism.
What this means in effect is this:
The members of one culture have no right to pass judgement on the members of any other culture - past or present - because morality is simply a matter of the cultural norms and social mores which obtain in a given culture at a given time. In other words, all cultures are morally equivalent with no culture being morally higher than another in terms of its norms, mores, laws, customs and the behaviour of its members.
Now let’s apply this way of thinking of yours to a form of behaviour that occurs regularly within certain Islamic communities: namely, gang-raping women as punishment for perceived sexual misbehaviour - or ‘honour rapes’ as they are called by Muslims.
Salman Rushdie reported on one such case as follows:
'In Honour-And-Shame cultures such as those of India and Pakistan, male honour resides in the sexual probity of women, and the “shaming of women dishonours all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan’s powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an “honour rape, intended to punish a relative of Ms Mukhtar for having been seen with a Mastoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.
Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman’s best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.’ Salman Rushdie, The Times, 18th July 2005
According to you and other contributors to this thread, gmc, we have no right to pass judgement on the gang-raping of women in Muslim communities because this kind of behaviour is just a matter of cultural norms and social mores¦just a matter of moral perspective. This is how they do things. We just happen to do things differently.
This is not my view. I think the gang-raping of women as punishment in Islamic communities is a moral outrage which should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
You can read Salman Rushdie’s article about 'honour-rapes' here:
Where is the honour in this vile code that condemns women to die in shame? | Salman Rushdie - Times Online
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332278 wrote: This is not my view. I think the gang-raping of women as punishment in Islamic communities is a moral outrage which should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.You're straying further and further from your topic again, besides boring the pants off the Internet community. Either focus or flail blindly.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian wrote: This is not my view. I think the gang-raping of women as punishment in Islamic communities is a moral outrage which should be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
spot wrote: You're straying further and further from your topic again, besides boring the pants off the Internet community. Either focus or flail blindly.
Glaswegian;1331974 wrote: The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.
YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam
I am focussed, spot. This is why I am addressing an issue about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings - as I promised I would do earlier in the thread - namely, the gang-raping of Muslim women.
Take another stress pill.
spot wrote: You're straying further and further from your topic again, besides boring the pants off the Internet community. Either focus or flail blindly.
Glaswegian;1331974 wrote: The following video raises a number of issues about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings, and I intend to address them in this thread.
YouTube - the sexual abuse of childern in Islam
I am focussed, spot. This is why I am addressing an issue about Islam which should be of serious concern to all civilized human beings - as I promised I would do earlier in the thread - namely, the gang-raping of Muslim women.
Take another stress pill.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
It's not a lot to do with "Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile" any longer, then.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
spot;1332135 wrote: What I'm saying is that people are the same whether they're living in 500BC Greece, 600AD Arabia, 1200AD Norman England or anywhere in the 21st century. What differs is the culture in which they live. To whatever extent it's meaningful, had I been born in any of those cultures I'd have acted according to the culture, not according to the UK norm of 2010.
This is moral relativism gone mad.
If people simply act according to the norms of their culture then where does individual moral responsibility lie? How can any individual be held morally accountable for his or her actions?
There are cultures, and there are subcultures within cultures - one such being the Mafia. This criminal subculture specialises in murder and violence. According to your way of thinking, spot, we cannot pass judgement on the members of the Mafia because they are only acting according to the cultural norms of the criminal group which they comprise. They simply do their thing - 'Cosa Nostra'. And we do ours. For you, there are no grounds on which we can condemn the activities of the Mafia. Because that would be tantamount to the members one culture judging the members of another, albeit smaller, culture - and this is not allowed in your eyes.
Moral relativism leads to moral paralysis. Wouldn’t you say so?
This is moral relativism gone mad.
If people simply act according to the norms of their culture then where does individual moral responsibility lie? How can any individual be held morally accountable for his or her actions?
There are cultures, and there are subcultures within cultures - one such being the Mafia. This criminal subculture specialises in murder and violence. According to your way of thinking, spot, we cannot pass judgement on the members of the Mafia because they are only acting according to the cultural norms of the criminal group which they comprise. They simply do their thing - 'Cosa Nostra'. And we do ours. For you, there are no grounds on which we can condemn the activities of the Mafia. Because that would be tantamount to the members one culture judging the members of another, albeit smaller, culture - and this is not allowed in your eyes.
Moral relativism leads to moral paralysis. Wouldn’t you say so?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Moral relativism doesn't lead to moral paralysis. The only source of absolute moral values are those derived from an external authority which is, in the form of sacred texts, what you've been criticizing since you arrived here. You've accepted that in the future people will react with disgust at the moral framework of present-day Western values which presumably means you refuse to recognize what we have now as absolute. Or maybe you feel tomorrow's generations will have strayed from the path of truth and light?
Glaswegian;1332289 wrote: This is moral relativism gone mad.
If people simply act according to the norms of their culture then where does individual moral responsibility lie? How can any individual be held morally accountable for his or her actions?By conforming to the moral value system of the culture in which they live and being judged accordingly. Tearing other cultures apart in order to impose your own value system is imperialism.
Glaswegian;1332289 wrote: This is moral relativism gone mad.
If people simply act according to the norms of their culture then where does individual moral responsibility lie? How can any individual be held morally accountable for his or her actions?By conforming to the moral value system of the culture in which they live and being judged accordingly. Tearing other cultures apart in order to impose your own value system is imperialism.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
spot;1332285 wrote: It's not a lot to do with "Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile" any longer, then.
I have no fear of where a discussion might lead, spot. Only those who live in fear of the truth do.
So have another pill.
I have no fear of where a discussion might lead, spot. Only those who live in fear of the truth do.
So have another pill.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332292 wrote: So have another pill.The only pill I can see round these parts is the one who started the thread.
I've done what needed doing, you can go back on ignore now.
I've done what needed doing, you can go back on ignore now.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1332139 wrote: So "Re: Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?" does not refer to Muhammad and does not suggest that he could be guilty of paedophilia?
Why not try answering the points raised rather than ascribing to me views I have never held.
Try a simple one - if you genuinely wish to discuss paedophilia or female genital mutilation, why choose a thread title that can only be classed as deliberately offensive?
As the author of the OP it is my privilege to give it whatever title I choose.
In this thread I intend to address a number of unsavoury issues about Islam. So think of the thread’s title as a sort of ’umbrella’ under which these issues can be subsumed.
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile given the fact that he had sexual relations with a nine year old girl.
If I had sexual relations with a nine year old girl then I would expect the same question to be asked about me.
So why shouldn’t this question be asked about Muhammad? - irrespective of the fact that he founded a religion.
You were the one who used the words "guilty of paedophilia" in the context of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, not I.
I hope your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice, Bryn. If it is then be ashamed, and think of the courageous apostates of Islam who risk their lives criticising this religion. Here is one to inspire you:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
Why not try answering the points raised rather than ascribing to me views I have never held.
Try a simple one - if you genuinely wish to discuss paedophilia or female genital mutilation, why choose a thread title that can only be classed as deliberately offensive?
As the author of the OP it is my privilege to give it whatever title I choose.
In this thread I intend to address a number of unsavoury issues about Islam. So think of the thread’s title as a sort of ’umbrella’ under which these issues can be subsumed.
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile given the fact that he had sexual relations with a nine year old girl.
If I had sexual relations with a nine year old girl then I would expect the same question to be asked about me.
So why shouldn’t this question be asked about Muhammad? - irrespective of the fact that he founded a religion.
You were the one who used the words "guilty of paedophilia" in the context of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, not I.
I hope your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice, Bryn. If it is then be ashamed, and think of the courageous apostates of Islam who risk their lives criticising this religion. Here is one to inspire you:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote: I hope your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice, Bryn. If it is then be ashamed, and think of the courageous apostates of Islam who risk their lives criticising this religion. Here is one to inspire you:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
Ayaan Hirsi Ali collaborated with Theo Van Gogh on the 2004 film Submission which deals with the oppression of women under Islam. Theo Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist assassin, Mohammed Bouyeri, who perceived Submission to be an insult to his religion. The assassin left a knife embedded in his victim’s body with a note attached stating that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would also be killed.
THEO VAN GOGH (1957-2004)
Murdered for making a film critical of Islam
'Theodoor "Theo" van Gogh was a Dutch film director, film producer, columnist, author and actor. He was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, who was the brother of artist-painter Vincent van Gogh.'
~o0o~
THE MURDER OF THEO VAN GOGH
'Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Theo Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then attempted to decapitate him with one knife, and stabbed him in the chest with another. The two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.'
~o0o~
In spite of facing death threats from Islamists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has declared that she wants to make a sequel to the film Submission. She says:
'"By not making 'Submission Part II', I would only be helping terrorists believe that if they use violence, they're rewarded with what they want."
When asked if she would submit to threats against her life, she said:
"Not me."'
~o0o~
The film for which Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered can be watched here:
YouTube - YouTube - Submission - by Theo van Gogh (MIRROR) [English w- Dutch captions].flv
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
Ayaan Hirsi Ali collaborated with Theo Van Gogh on the 2004 film Submission which deals with the oppression of women under Islam. Theo Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist assassin, Mohammed Bouyeri, who perceived Submission to be an insult to his religion. The assassin left a knife embedded in his victim’s body with a note attached stating that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would also be killed.
THEO VAN GOGH (1957-2004)
Murdered for making a film critical of Islam
'Theodoor "Theo" van Gogh was a Dutch film director, film producer, columnist, author and actor. He was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, who was the brother of artist-painter Vincent van Gogh.'
~o0o~
THE MURDER OF THEO VAN GOGH
'Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Theo Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then attempted to decapitate him with one knife, and stabbed him in the chest with another. The two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.'
~o0o~
In spite of facing death threats from Islamists, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has declared that she wants to make a sequel to the film Submission. She says:
'"By not making 'Submission Part II', I would only be helping terrorists believe that if they use violence, they're rewarded with what they want."
When asked if she would submit to threats against her life, she said:
"Not me."'
~o0o~
The film for which Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered can be watched here:
YouTube - YouTube - Submission - by Theo van Gogh (MIRROR) [English w- Dutch captions].flv
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Technically, the society defines whether he was a pedophile but to suggest this was ok can best be ascribed as a very emphatic no!
Fortunately everyone's religion is different which means everyone should be tried and condemned equally as differently. Everyone's intellect is defined by what they feel and how they act. Some believe it's better virtue to follow the thought patterns of a select group of people. I personally know this to be defined as "ignorance" but whatever makes people happy.
What you do, Glaswegian, when you attempt to subdue the thought patterns of anyone is assert that your way of asking the questions is "better" ultimately ending in an attempt to brainwash individuals into thinking what they're not programmed into understanding. If they were capable of understanding the exact thoughts of anyone, or yourself, they wouldn't exist outside your scope of reason which would entail a lack of response by your part or anyone else. The response is then initiated by your(I'm quite aware at this point you've placed your comprehension on ignore lest you might come away from this enlightened) agenda to make this individual conform to your ideologies. How is this different then?
All that's left is to sit through the garbage that other individuals create and hope at the end of it is light. It's like people throwing the word "evolution" around as if it's some sort of existence. It's nothing more than an observation
You either observe it or you truly miss the point
Fortunately everyone's religion is different which means everyone should be tried and condemned equally as differently. Everyone's intellect is defined by what they feel and how they act. Some believe it's better virtue to follow the thought patterns of a select group of people. I personally know this to be defined as "ignorance" but whatever makes people happy.
What you do, Glaswegian, when you attempt to subdue the thought patterns of anyone is assert that your way of asking the questions is "better" ultimately ending in an attempt to brainwash individuals into thinking what they're not programmed into understanding. If they were capable of understanding the exact thoughts of anyone, or yourself, they wouldn't exist outside your scope of reason which would entail a lack of response by your part or anyone else. The response is then initiated by your(I'm quite aware at this point you've placed your comprehension on ignore lest you might come away from this enlightened) agenda to make this individual conform to your ideologies. How is this different then?
All that's left is to sit through the garbage that other individuals create and hope at the end of it is light. It's like people throwing the word "evolution" around as if it's some sort of existence. It's nothing more than an observation
You either observe it or you truly miss the point
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
spot;1332291 wrote: The only source of absolute moral values are those derived from an external authority which is, in the form of sacred texts, what you've been criticizing since you arrived here.
spot wrote: No moral value system remains constant.
Does this include the moral value system known as 'The Ten Commandments', spot? Are 'The Ten Commandments' absolute or are they just historically and culturally specific, and not to be constantly adhered to by all people, at all times, and in all places?
spot wrote: No moral value system remains constant.
Does this include the moral value system known as 'The Ten Commandments', spot? Are 'The Ten Commandments' absolute or are they just historically and culturally specific, and not to be constantly adhered to by all people, at all times, and in all places?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1332421 wrote: Technically, the society defines whether he was a pedophile but to suggest this was ok can best be ascribed as a very emphatic no!
Am I correct in saying that for you, K, when a grown man has sexual relations with a nine year old child this is always immoral regardless of time and place?
You’ve raised an interesting point about a society’s defining what is moral and immoral.
If sex between an adult and a child is defined as morally unacceptable by a particular society then does another society’s redefining this behaviour as morally acceptable alter the behaviour in any way? Does the behaviour which underlies the new definition not remain the same?
What’s your view on this?
Am I correct in saying that for you, K, when a grown man has sexual relations with a nine year old child this is always immoral regardless of time and place?
You’ve raised an interesting point about a society’s defining what is moral and immoral.
If sex between an adult and a child is defined as morally unacceptable by a particular society then does another society’s redefining this behaviour as morally acceptable alter the behaviour in any way? Does the behaviour which underlies the new definition not remain the same?
What’s your view on this?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
MUHAMMAD, AISHA, ISLAM, AND CHILD BRIDES
Was Aisha mature enough to decide for herself? Are young girls old enough to decide for themselves?
'It is obvious from reading Aisha's accounts in the Hadith and Tabari's history that she raised no objection in marrying Muhammad. She wasn’t mature enough to understand Muhammad’s marriage proposal. She wasn’t mature enough to know what Muhammad was up to when she was sent into the room and he had her sit on his lap.
It all happened so quickly that she didn't know what was going on. This is not surprising. As stated, the brain's ability to be maturely cognitive occurs well after age 9. At age 9, Aisha was barely able to comprehend the world around her. She knew that Muhammad was someone special, she knew that her father loved him. Because Aisha raised no objection does not make it right. She was too young to truly think and decide for herself.
And what about all the other little girls in the Islamic world who are not "fortunate" enough to marry a celebrity like Muhammad? Do they really have a choice? Are their voices heard? According to what is documented, many are not. Many little girls become severely depressed following Muhammad's "Sunnah" in the Islamic world.'
The above excerpt has been taken from the following article:
Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, and Child Brides
Was Aisha mature enough to decide for herself? Are young girls old enough to decide for themselves?
'It is obvious from reading Aisha's accounts in the Hadith and Tabari's history that she raised no objection in marrying Muhammad. She wasn’t mature enough to understand Muhammad’s marriage proposal. She wasn’t mature enough to know what Muhammad was up to when she was sent into the room and he had her sit on his lap.
It all happened so quickly that she didn't know what was going on. This is not surprising. As stated, the brain's ability to be maturely cognitive occurs well after age 9. At age 9, Aisha was barely able to comprehend the world around her. She knew that Muhammad was someone special, she knew that her father loved him. Because Aisha raised no objection does not make it right. She was too young to truly think and decide for herself.
And what about all the other little girls in the Islamic world who are not "fortunate" enough to marry a celebrity like Muhammad? Do they really have a choice? Are their voices heard? According to what is documented, many are not. Many little girls become severely depressed following Muhammad's "Sunnah" in the Islamic world.'
The above excerpt has been taken from the following article:
Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, and Child Brides
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
theia;1332120 wrote: My understanding of what spot is saying is that paedophilia was considered acceptable in some cultures at some points in history, which clearly it was. I'm confused as to how you can interpret this as spot condoning paedophilia in our culture.
The only reason spot does not condone paedophilia, theia, is because it goes against the norms of our culture. For spot, if a grown man has sex with a child there is nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself. What determines its rightness or wrongness is simply a matter of time and place for him. So, for example, if there existed an island off the coast of, say, Thailand where it was the custom for men to have sex with children then this would be alright in spot’s eyes because these men would be just obeying the cultural norms of the island. And neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who exists off that island would have the right to pass moral judgement on the men who have sexual relations with children on it, because that would be the members of one culture judging the members of another, and that is not allowed in spot’s view.
Now what is your view, theia? Do you think that when a grown man has sex with a child there’s nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself, and that it’s just a matter of time and place - just a matter of moral fashion?
The only reason spot does not condone paedophilia, theia, is because it goes against the norms of our culture. For spot, if a grown man has sex with a child there is nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself. What determines its rightness or wrongness is simply a matter of time and place for him. So, for example, if there existed an island off the coast of, say, Thailand where it was the custom for men to have sex with children then this would be alright in spot’s eyes because these men would be just obeying the cultural norms of the island. And neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who exists off that island would have the right to pass moral judgement on the men who have sexual relations with children on it, because that would be the members of one culture judging the members of another, and that is not allowed in spot’s view.
Now what is your view, theia? Do you think that when a grown man has sex with a child there’s nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself, and that it’s just a matter of time and place - just a matter of moral fashion?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332154 wrote: Let me put you a question. Had you been alive in 1690, which side would you have fought on in the religious wars of the time..?
HER SIDE...
'I shall need you behind me all the way, Glaswegian'
~o0o~
GLASWEGIAN'S ARMOUR
HER SIDE...
'I shall need you behind me all the way, Glaswegian'
~o0o~
GLASWEGIAN'S ARMOUR
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Christians were behaving in exactly the same way in regard to children at around the same time. In that regard christian religious leaders were every bit as despicable as muslim. As an attempt to portray islam as somehow more vile than Christianity your argument doesn't really stand up to more than about thirty seconds of concentrated consideration. Have a look at what the contemporary popes were up to. Religious leaders of all stamps have a prurient fascination with sex, if not for themselves then with what others are up to. The present day Taliban and christian right6 are no different from their predecessors.
The advancement in society in terms of equality and human rights came not from religious leaders but from the society around them. In spite of religion not because of it. Why is that glaswegian.
I see you have more bondage equipment than the rubber suits. Do you put your perversions down to your early religious experience or are they your natural inclination. The marquis de sade went to jesuit school perhaps you did as well.
The advancement in society in terms of equality and human rights came not from religious leaders but from the society around them. In spite of religion not because of it. Why is that glaswegian.
I see you have more bondage equipment than the rubber suits. Do you put your perversions down to your early religious experience or are they your natural inclination. The marquis de sade went to jesuit school perhaps you did as well.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332454 wrote: The only reason spot does not condone paedophilia, theia, is because it goes against the norms of our culture. For spot, if a grown man has sex with a child there is nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself. What determines its rightness or wrongness is simply a matter of time and place for him. So, for example, if there existed an island off the coast of, say, Thailand where it was the custom for men to have sex with children then this would be alright in spot’s eyes because these men would be just obeying the cultural norms of the island. And neither you, nor I, nor anyone else who exists off that island has the right to pass moral judgement about the sexual activities of the males with children on it, because that would be the members of one culture judging the members of another, and that is not allowed in spot’s view.
Now what is your view, theia? Do you think that when a grown man has sex with a child there’s nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself, and that it’s just a matter of time and place - just a matter of moral fashion?
I was going to post my response to your question but I realise from the images you're posting that this is just a joke to you, so I won't bother.
Now what is your view, theia? Do you think that when a grown man has sex with a child there’s nothing wrong with this behaviour in itself, and that it’s just a matter of time and place - just a matter of moral fashion?
I was going to post my response to your question but I realise from the images you're posting that this is just a joke to you, so I won't bother.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332474 wrote: As an attempt to portray islam as somehow more vile than Christianity your argument doesn't really stand up to more than about thirty seconds of concentrated consideration.
Where in this thread have I stated that it is my intention to portray Islam as somehow more vile than Christianity?
Nowhere.
That said, I’m sure you realise that I regard the former religion as being every bit as vile as the latter. And here I’m being economical with my condemnation.
I’ve no doubt that there are some members of this forum who are reluctant to condemn Islam even though they know in their hearts that this religion is deserving of condemnation. And the reason for this is because, like so many others beyond this forum, they have allowed themselves to be intimidated by a bunch of religious thugs with beards.
But there is a further reason why some members of this forum are reluctant to condemn Islam, and it is a reason which is peculiar to religionists, and it is this: They are reluctant to condemn Islam because to do so is to implicitly condemn their own religion. For they know deep down that their religion is just as vile and ridiculous as Islam. So they prefer to put their head in the sand and keep quiet about Islam. Think of their reticence as stemming from ‘guilt by association’.
gmc wrote: The advancement in society in terms of equality and human rights came not from religious leaders but from the society around them. In spite of religion not because of it. Why is that glaswegian.
Because of men of reason like you, gmc… :yh_worshp
…and, at the risk of seeming immodest, me. :yh_blush
Where in this thread have I stated that it is my intention to portray Islam as somehow more vile than Christianity?
Nowhere.
That said, I’m sure you realise that I regard the former religion as being every bit as vile as the latter. And here I’m being economical with my condemnation.
I’ve no doubt that there are some members of this forum who are reluctant to condemn Islam even though they know in their hearts that this religion is deserving of condemnation. And the reason for this is because, like so many others beyond this forum, they have allowed themselves to be intimidated by a bunch of religious thugs with beards.
But there is a further reason why some members of this forum are reluctant to condemn Islam, and it is a reason which is peculiar to religionists, and it is this: They are reluctant to condemn Islam because to do so is to implicitly condemn their own religion. For they know deep down that their religion is just as vile and ridiculous as Islam. So they prefer to put their head in the sand and keep quiet about Islam. Think of their reticence as stemming from ‘guilt by association’.
gmc wrote: The advancement in society in terms of equality and human rights came not from religious leaders but from the society around them. In spite of religion not because of it. Why is that glaswegian.
Because of men of reason like you, gmc… :yh_worshp
…and, at the risk of seeming immodest, me. :yh_blush
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
The advancement in society in terms of equality and human rights came not from religious leaders but from the society around them. In spite of religion not because of it.
Not entirely true. Much of the improvement in the lot of the working man began with devoutly religious people who translated their beliefs into action. I'm talking about places like Saltaire, or the impetus behind Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. The impetus behind this was explicitly religious. And given both the examples I've given were of Protestant origin, the men involved did not think their acts would lead to their salvation.
The advancement - or collapse - of society comes through a discussion by the elements of that society. That discussion can advance, stall, or collapse depending on the people and ideas involved.
Not entirely true. Much of the improvement in the lot of the working man began with devoutly religious people who translated their beliefs into action. I'm talking about places like Saltaire, or the impetus behind Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. The impetus behind this was explicitly religious. And given both the examples I've given were of Protestant origin, the men involved did not think their acts would lead to their salvation.
The advancement - or collapse - of society comes through a discussion by the elements of that society. That discussion can advance, stall, or collapse depending on the people and ideas involved.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332433 wrote: Am I correct in saying that for you, K, when a grown man has sexual relations with a nine year old child this is always immoral regardless of time and place?
You’ve raised an interesting point about a society’s defining what is moral and immoral.
If sex between an adult and a child is defined as morally unacceptable by a particular society then does another society’s redefining this behaviour as morally acceptable alter the behaviour in any way? Does the behaviour which underlies the new definition not remain the same?
What’s your view on this?My point about evolution coincides with the appropriateness of the situation you've presented. It's only moral or immoral based off of the individual definitions of the people living within the society. Those people then make up the numbers to be observed to eventually be, and equally as wrong, categorized into a group. The group doesn't exist. Evolution is an observation not something that lives nor dies. The same can be said about how you seem to be suggesting it's appropriate to alter the minds of individuals you disagree with. It's not your right. Your only right is to jail the individual in which can best be defined as "moral" upon the event you retain the sentiment of the majority. This defines your "society" Glas.
Laws are for people that cannot abide by them. What's wrong with society is their insistence to create laws in which they cannot prevent. It's ludicrous buddy...Prevent the crime and you need not a law. It's that simple. If you'd like to create a thread arguing who believes all crimes can be prevented and who cannot would be more appropriate as is quite clear by the resistance you've managed to create by a particularly poor written thread title. No one's arguing against whether the creep was an ok "gent" my God man most everyone here have either children themselves or nieces and nephews they'd just as quickly risk their lives for
You’ve raised an interesting point about a society’s defining what is moral and immoral.
If sex between an adult and a child is defined as morally unacceptable by a particular society then does another society’s redefining this behaviour as morally acceptable alter the behaviour in any way? Does the behaviour which underlies the new definition not remain the same?
What’s your view on this?My point about evolution coincides with the appropriateness of the situation you've presented. It's only moral or immoral based off of the individual definitions of the people living within the society. Those people then make up the numbers to be observed to eventually be, and equally as wrong, categorized into a group. The group doesn't exist. Evolution is an observation not something that lives nor dies. The same can be said about how you seem to be suggesting it's appropriate to alter the minds of individuals you disagree with. It's not your right. Your only right is to jail the individual in which can best be defined as "moral" upon the event you retain the sentiment of the majority. This defines your "society" Glas.
Laws are for people that cannot abide by them. What's wrong with society is their insistence to create laws in which they cannot prevent. It's ludicrous buddy...Prevent the crime and you need not a law. It's that simple. If you'd like to create a thread arguing who believes all crimes can be prevented and who cannot would be more appropriate as is quite clear by the resistance you've managed to create by a particularly poor written thread title. No one's arguing against whether the creep was an ok "gent" my God man most everyone here have either children themselves or nieces and nephews they'd just as quickly risk their lives for
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1332592 wrote: My point about evolution coincides with the appropriateness of the situation you've presented. It's only moral or immoral based off of the individual definitions of the people living within the society. Those people then make up the numbers to be observed to eventually be, and equally as wrong, categorized into a group. The group doesn't exist. Evolution is an observation not something that lives nor dies. The same can be said about how you seem to be suggesting it's appropriate to alter the minds of individuals you disagree with. It's not your right.
Any individual who enters into a discussion should be prepared to have his mind altered - otherwise why enter into it? Discussion presupposes a willingness on the part of those who participate in it to change their existing attitudes, beliefs and opinions should the arguments put forward in the discussion require it.
But this is precisely what the religionist is not prepared to do. For his mind is closed to arguments - no matter how rational and cogent they might be. When the religionist enters into a discussion he is already in possession of ‘Absolute and Eternal Truths’, and these are not subject to negotiation or change in his view. Merely to question these ‘Revealed Truths’ is to risk offending him¦and worse. The punishments meted out to those who have questioned or even doubted the ‘Revealed Truths’ of Religion have been dire indeed - and the most cursory glance at Religion's dark history will confirm this.
I mean, how can one hope to accomplish anything through discussion with the following mindset:
‘Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise.’ (Koran 4: 56)
Can you imagine a scientist talking like this? Can you imagine a physicist, for example, saying:
‘Those that deny ‘The Theory of Relativity’ We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Einstein is mighty and wise.’
Any member of the science community who came out with stuff like that would be suspected of having lost his wits.
Unlike religionists, rational human beings regard discussion as an opportunity, not as a threat. Because they know that through it they can abandon ideas and beliefs which are erroneous, ridiculous and dangerous for better ones.
K.Snyder;1332592 wrote: Laws are for people that cannot abide by them. What's wrong with society is their insistence to create laws in which they cannot prevent. It's ludicrous buddy...Prevent the crime and you need not a law. It's that simple.
We are the most dominant animal on this planet right now, K, because we can place our great intelligence at the disposal of our unparalleled capacity for savagery and violence any time we choose. This is a ‘talent’ we will not give up easily. Laws exist to keep it in check.
Any individual who enters into a discussion should be prepared to have his mind altered - otherwise why enter into it? Discussion presupposes a willingness on the part of those who participate in it to change their existing attitudes, beliefs and opinions should the arguments put forward in the discussion require it.
But this is precisely what the religionist is not prepared to do. For his mind is closed to arguments - no matter how rational and cogent they might be. When the religionist enters into a discussion he is already in possession of ‘Absolute and Eternal Truths’, and these are not subject to negotiation or change in his view. Merely to question these ‘Revealed Truths’ is to risk offending him¦and worse. The punishments meted out to those who have questioned or even doubted the ‘Revealed Truths’ of Religion have been dire indeed - and the most cursory glance at Religion's dark history will confirm this.
I mean, how can one hope to accomplish anything through discussion with the following mindset:
‘Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise.’ (Koran 4: 56)
Can you imagine a scientist talking like this? Can you imagine a physicist, for example, saying:
‘Those that deny ‘The Theory of Relativity’ We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Einstein is mighty and wise.’
Any member of the science community who came out with stuff like that would be suspected of having lost his wits.
Unlike religionists, rational human beings regard discussion as an opportunity, not as a threat. Because they know that through it they can abandon ideas and beliefs which are erroneous, ridiculous and dangerous for better ones.
K.Snyder;1332592 wrote: Laws are for people that cannot abide by them. What's wrong with society is their insistence to create laws in which they cannot prevent. It's ludicrous buddy...Prevent the crime and you need not a law. It's that simple.
We are the most dominant animal on this planet right now, K, because we can place our great intelligence at the disposal of our unparalleled capacity for savagery and violence any time we choose. This is a ‘talent’ we will not give up easily. Laws exist to keep it in check.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
THE VILE AND MURDEROUS TEACHINGS OF THE KORAN
Those who think that Islam is a religion of peace are foolish in the extreme or else they are deceiving themselves. This religion offers the unbeliever two choices - either convert to Islam or be killed. The Muslim is exhorted by his ‘holy book’ not to rest until Islam reigns supreme across the entire earth. The Koran is nothing less than a textbook for murder and mayhem. Here is a selection of its dangerous and despicable teachings:
"It is the same whether or not you forewarn them , they will have no faith" (2: 6).
"God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2: 15).
A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2: 24).
They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2: 85).
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2: 89).
"They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits " (2: 90).
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2: 98).
"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2: 105).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2: 114).
"Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2: 122).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2: 126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2: 142).
"Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2: 154).
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2: 162).
"They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2: 168).
"The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2: 172).
"Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2: 175).
"How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2: 176).
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage...If they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers" (2: 190-93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2: 216).
"They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith - if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2: 217-18).
"God does not guide the evil-doers" (2: 258).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (2: 264).
"The evil-doers shall have none to help them" (2: 270).
"God gives guidance to whom He will" (2: 272).
"Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge" (3: 5).
"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire" (3: 10).
"Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell - an evil resting place!'" (3: 12).
"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam...He that denies God's revelations should know that swift is God's reckoning" (3: 19).
"Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from God - except in self-defence" (3: 28).
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3: 118).
"If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels" (3: 140).
"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition...We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers...The Fire shall be their home" (3: 149-51).
"Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: 'Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words...If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (3: 156).
"Never think that those who were slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God will not deny the faithful their reward" (3: 169).
"Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them" (3: 178).
"Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3: 195-96).
"God has cursed them in their unbelief" (4: 46).
"God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin...Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: 'These are better guided than the believers'" (4: 50-51).
"Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise" (4: 56).
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime" (5: 57).
"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. We have stirred among them enmity and hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection" (5: 65).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (5: 67).
"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers" (5: 69).
"You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment...You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'" (5: 80-82).
"[T]hose that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell" (5: 86).
"[T]hey deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn" (6: 5).
"We had made them more powerful in the land than yourselves , sent down for them abundant water from the sky and gave them rivers that rolled at their feet. Yet because they sinned We destroyed them all and raised up other generations after them. If We sent down to you a Book inscribed on real parchment and they touched it with their own hands, the unbelievers would still assert: 'This is but plain sorcery'. They ask: 'Why has no angel been sent down to him [Muhammad]?' If We had sent down an angel, their fate would have been sealed and they would have never been reprieved" (6: 5-8).
"Who is more wicked than the man who invents falsehoods about God or denies His revelations?" (6: 21).
"Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs, even if they see them one and all. When they come to argue with you the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but old fictitious tales.' They forbid it and depart from it. They ruin none but themselves, though they do not perceive it. If you could see them when they are set before the Fire! They will say: 'Would that we could return! Then we would not deny the revelations of our Lord and would be true believers' (6: 23-27).
"But if they were sent back, they would return to that which they have been forbidden. They are liars all" (6: 29).
"Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all" (6: 35).
"Deaf and dumb are those that deny Our revelations: they blunder about in darkness. God confounds whom He will, and guides to a straight path whom He pleases." (6: 39)
"[T]heir hearts were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe!" (6: 43-45).
"[T]hose that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds" (6: 49).
"Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief" (6: 70).
"Could you but see the wrongdoers when death overwhelms them! With hands outstretched, the angels will say: 'Yield up your souls. You shall be rewarded with the scourge of shame this day, for you have said of God what is untrue and scorned His revelations" (6: 93).
"Avoid the pagans. Had God pleased, they would not have worshipped idols...We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the Truth since they refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in their wrongdoing. If We sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak to them...and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise...Thus have We assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished falsehoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so. Therefore leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what they say and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways" (6: 107-12).
"The devils will teach their votaries to argue with you. If you obey them you shall yourselves become idolaters...God will humiliate the transgressors and mete out to them a grievous punishment for their scheming" (6: 121-25).
"If God wills to guide a man, He opens his bosom to Islam. But if he pleases to confound him, He makes his bosom small and narrow as though he were climbing up to heaven. Thus shall God lay the scourge on the unbelievers" (6: 125).
~o0o~
Those who think that Islam is a religion of peace are foolish in the extreme or else they are deceiving themselves. This religion offers the unbeliever two choices - either convert to Islam or be killed. The Muslim is exhorted by his ‘holy book’ not to rest until Islam reigns supreme across the entire earth. The Koran is nothing less than a textbook for murder and mayhem. Here is a selection of its dangerous and despicable teachings:
"It is the same whether or not you forewarn them , they will have no faith" (2: 6).
"God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2: 15).
A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2: 24).
They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2: 85).
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2: 89).
"They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits " (2: 90).
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2: 98).
"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2: 105).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2: 114).
"Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2: 122).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2: 126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2: 142).
"Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2: 154).
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2: 162).
"They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2: 168).
"The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2: 172).
"Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2: 175).
"How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2: 176).
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage...If they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers" (2: 190-93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2: 216).
"They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith - if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2: 217-18).
"God does not guide the evil-doers" (2: 258).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (2: 264).
"The evil-doers shall have none to help them" (2: 270).
"God gives guidance to whom He will" (2: 272).
"Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge" (3: 5).
"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire" (3: 10).
"Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell - an evil resting place!'" (3: 12).
"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam...He that denies God's revelations should know that swift is God's reckoning" (3: 19).
"Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from God - except in self-defence" (3: 28).
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3: 118).
"If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels" (3: 140).
"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition...We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers...The Fire shall be their home" (3: 149-51).
"Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: 'Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words...If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (3: 156).
"Never think that those who were slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God will not deny the faithful their reward" (3: 169).
"Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them" (3: 178).
"Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3: 195-96).
"God has cursed them in their unbelief" (4: 46).
"God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin...Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: 'These are better guided than the believers'" (4: 50-51).
"Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise" (4: 56).
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime" (5: 57).
"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. We have stirred among them enmity and hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection" (5: 65).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (5: 67).
"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers" (5: 69).
"You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment...You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'" (5: 80-82).
"[T]hose that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell" (5: 86).
"[T]hey deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn" (6: 5).
"We had made them more powerful in the land than yourselves , sent down for them abundant water from the sky and gave them rivers that rolled at their feet. Yet because they sinned We destroyed them all and raised up other generations after them. If We sent down to you a Book inscribed on real parchment and they touched it with their own hands, the unbelievers would still assert: 'This is but plain sorcery'. They ask: 'Why has no angel been sent down to him [Muhammad]?' If We had sent down an angel, their fate would have been sealed and they would have never been reprieved" (6: 5-8).
"Who is more wicked than the man who invents falsehoods about God or denies His revelations?" (6: 21).
"Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs, even if they see them one and all. When they come to argue with you the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but old fictitious tales.' They forbid it and depart from it. They ruin none but themselves, though they do not perceive it. If you could see them when they are set before the Fire! They will say: 'Would that we could return! Then we would not deny the revelations of our Lord and would be true believers' (6: 23-27).
"But if they were sent back, they would return to that which they have been forbidden. They are liars all" (6: 29).
"Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all" (6: 35).
"Deaf and dumb are those that deny Our revelations: they blunder about in darkness. God confounds whom He will, and guides to a straight path whom He pleases." (6: 39)
"[T]heir hearts were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe!" (6: 43-45).
"[T]hose that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds" (6: 49).
"Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief" (6: 70).
"Could you but see the wrongdoers when death overwhelms them! With hands outstretched, the angels will say: 'Yield up your souls. You shall be rewarded with the scourge of shame this day, for you have said of God what is untrue and scorned His revelations" (6: 93).
"Avoid the pagans. Had God pleased, they would not have worshipped idols...We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the Truth since they refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in their wrongdoing. If We sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak to them...and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise...Thus have We assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished falsehoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so. Therefore leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what they say and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways" (6: 107-12).
"The devils will teach their votaries to argue with you. If you obey them you shall yourselves become idolaters...God will humiliate the transgressors and mete out to them a grievous punishment for their scheming" (6: 121-25).
"If God wills to guide a man, He opens his bosom to Islam. But if he pleases to confound him, He makes his bosom small and narrow as though he were climbing up to heaven. Thus shall God lay the scourge on the unbelievers" (6: 125).
~o0o~
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Your obsession is unhealthy Mr Glaswegian.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bruv;1332820 wrote: Your obsession is unhealthy Mr Glaswegian.
My obsession with what, Bruv?
My obsession with what, Bruv?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Clodhopper;1332562 wrote: Not entirely true. Much of the improvement in the lot of the working man began with devoutly religious people who translated their beliefs into action. I'm talking about places like Saltaire, or the impetus behind Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. The impetus behind this was explicitly religious. And given both the examples I've given were of Protestant origin, the men involved did not think their acts would lead to their salvation.
The advancement - or collapse - of society comes through a discussion by the elements of that society. That discussion can advance, stall, or collapse depending on the people and ideas involved.
It really started when the bible started being printed in english and ordinary people could read it for themselves. If all people were born equal then the nonsense that some are born to rule becomes self evident. The driving force wasn't the established church but free thinkers, yes inspired by religion just not the one they were supposed to follow. The society around the church not the church itself. It wasn't the church that led the calls for the abolition of slavery for all that was ordinary people who saw the injustice of it. It wasn't the establishment that supported wilberforce and others like him it was ordinary people. It's when people look to and rely on an outside body to tell them waht is right or wrong we end up with a repressive society. It's a never ending conflict between ordinary people and those who would take power and control for themselves. All that changes is the name of the players, and no I don't mean some world wide conspiracy of a ruling elite from the beginnimng of time. It's human nature, many leaders start out doing things for the good of all and end up thinking anyone who opposes or disagrees is an enemy of the state. Sometimes it's mind set people acquire.
So on other words I agree with you in broad terms. On the other hand it was downright dangerous to reject religion altogether even iof you did have a good case. Look what happened to thomas paine, hero to zero in the space of a pamphlet criticising religion.
The advancement - or collapse - of society comes through a discussion by the elements of that society. That discussion can advance, stall, or collapse depending on the people and ideas involved.
It really started when the bible started being printed in english and ordinary people could read it for themselves. If all people were born equal then the nonsense that some are born to rule becomes self evident. The driving force wasn't the established church but free thinkers, yes inspired by religion just not the one they were supposed to follow. The society around the church not the church itself. It wasn't the church that led the calls for the abolition of slavery for all that was ordinary people who saw the injustice of it. It wasn't the establishment that supported wilberforce and others like him it was ordinary people. It's when people look to and rely on an outside body to tell them waht is right or wrong we end up with a repressive society. It's a never ending conflict between ordinary people and those who would take power and control for themselves. All that changes is the name of the players, and no I don't mean some world wide conspiracy of a ruling elite from the beginnimng of time. It's human nature, many leaders start out doing things for the good of all and end up thinking anyone who opposes or disagrees is an enemy of the state. Sometimes it's mind set people acquire.
So on other words I agree with you in broad terms. On the other hand it was downright dangerous to reject religion altogether even iof you did have a good case. Look what happened to thomas paine, hero to zero in the space of a pamphlet criticising religion.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Clodhopper;1332562 wrote: Not entirely true. Much of the improvement in the lot of the working man began with devoutly religious people who translated their beliefs into action. I'm talking about places like Saltaire, or the impetus behind Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. The impetus behind this was explicitly religious. And given both the examples I've given were of Protestant origin, the men involved did not think their acts would lead to their salvation.
Religion has been one of the chief sources for providing moral justification for slavery in human history, Clod.
In the Bible, not a single word is spoken by ‘God’ against the institution of slavery. This ‘God’ is more concerned about the dietary habits of a bunch of stone age desert yokels than he is about slavery. This by itself is a powerful indication that the Bible is a man-made affair hammered together by the same bunch of yokels.
You talk about the religious impetus behind Wilberforce’s efforts to abolish slavery. Let me bring in something here which I’ve posted elsewhere in this forum because it bears strongly on this matter.
Viz.
'Christianity functioned as a powerful ideological device to legitimate and sustain the institution of slavery in both colonial and post-revolutionary America. The attitude of the Christian religion towards slavery in 'the land of the free' was crass and hypocritical because it championed the freedoms and rights of American citizens while denying these very same freedoms and rights to African-American slaves. The doctrines and texts of Christianity were used on the one hand to remove any doubts on the part of whites that African-American slaves were undeserving of freedom, and on the other to inveigle the latter into accepting their condition of bondage as a natural and proper one. For example, Christian clergy sympathetic to the institution of slavery exhorted slaves "to count their Masters worthy of all honour, as those whom God has placed over them in this world" and they cited the authority of scripture - such as Paul's Letter To Philemon - in order to justify slavery to both whites and slaves alike.
Throughout the history of slavery in America the Christian religion operated as a highly effective instrument of oppression and mystification against slaves. But not only that. As a result of sanitising slavery, as a result of giving it a 'clean bill of health', the Christian religion also served to make it palatable to those Americans who might otherwise have been so outraged by it as to become active and vociferous opponents of it. Because Christianity provided slavery with legitimacy 'from on high', and therefore with the ultimate sanction and approval in the eyes of many, it was the most insidious and efficacious component of the particular ideological system which made slavery possible back then - the system which black writers of today call 'the white regime of truth'.
Now, before anyone in this forum jumps in at this point and starts bleating stuff like - "Ah, but Christianity wasn't always pro-slavery. For example, William Wilberforce was a Christian and his religion motivated him greatly in his efforts to end that appalling institution." - let me say just this: If William Wilberforce needed Christianity to tell him that slavery was wrong then he was a moral idiot. African-Americans who endured the misery and suffering of slavery didn't need Christianity to tell them that it was wrong. I don't need Christianity to tell me that slavery is wrong. You don't need Christianity to tell you that slavery is wrong, [Clod]. And I hope that no one else in this forum does either.'
Religion has been one of the chief sources for providing moral justification for slavery in human history, Clod.
In the Bible, not a single word is spoken by ‘God’ against the institution of slavery. This ‘God’ is more concerned about the dietary habits of a bunch of stone age desert yokels than he is about slavery. This by itself is a powerful indication that the Bible is a man-made affair hammered together by the same bunch of yokels.
You talk about the religious impetus behind Wilberforce’s efforts to abolish slavery. Let me bring in something here which I’ve posted elsewhere in this forum because it bears strongly on this matter.
Viz.
'Christianity functioned as a powerful ideological device to legitimate and sustain the institution of slavery in both colonial and post-revolutionary America. The attitude of the Christian religion towards slavery in 'the land of the free' was crass and hypocritical because it championed the freedoms and rights of American citizens while denying these very same freedoms and rights to African-American slaves. The doctrines and texts of Christianity were used on the one hand to remove any doubts on the part of whites that African-American slaves were undeserving of freedom, and on the other to inveigle the latter into accepting their condition of bondage as a natural and proper one. For example, Christian clergy sympathetic to the institution of slavery exhorted slaves "to count their Masters worthy of all honour, as those whom God has placed over them in this world" and they cited the authority of scripture - such as Paul's Letter To Philemon - in order to justify slavery to both whites and slaves alike.
Throughout the history of slavery in America the Christian religion operated as a highly effective instrument of oppression and mystification against slaves. But not only that. As a result of sanitising slavery, as a result of giving it a 'clean bill of health', the Christian religion also served to make it palatable to those Americans who might otherwise have been so outraged by it as to become active and vociferous opponents of it. Because Christianity provided slavery with legitimacy 'from on high', and therefore with the ultimate sanction and approval in the eyes of many, it was the most insidious and efficacious component of the particular ideological system which made slavery possible back then - the system which black writers of today call 'the white regime of truth'.
Now, before anyone in this forum jumps in at this point and starts bleating stuff like - "Ah, but Christianity wasn't always pro-slavery. For example, William Wilberforce was a Christian and his religion motivated him greatly in his efforts to end that appalling institution." - let me say just this: If William Wilberforce needed Christianity to tell him that slavery was wrong then he was a moral idiot. African-Americans who endured the misery and suffering of slavery didn't need Christianity to tell them that it was wrong. I don't need Christianity to tell me that slavery is wrong. You don't need Christianity to tell you that slavery is wrong, [Clod]. And I hope that no one else in this forum does either.'
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
You will often see the argument that darwin is responsible for racism, superior species, superiority of the white man etc etc.
My favourite saint, not that I really have one but it's a good one to annoy militaristic numbwits with.
St Maurice of the Theban Legion
Patron Saint of the Infantry, Infantryman, Alpini and Swiss Guards.
Roman Christendom: Saint Maurice: martyr, black saint, Knight Commander of the Theban Legion and Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
Since all were men were created equal There had to be a way to justify the keeping of black slaves so those who were jealous of an ex slaves success could take the lend off them. pre darwin people turned to the bible for an answer. As we all know you can find anything in the bible if you look hard enough.
Far from freeing people the bible and religion have been consistently used to counteract the natural instinct most people have to treat one another fairly. The claims of the religious that religion is a moral compass for us all ad has led the way to a moral society stand up to no more than a few minutes consideration. Look at the current fundamentalist imams in islam and the behaviours and attitudes of the current pope. Role models? please!
My favourite saint, not that I really have one but it's a good one to annoy militaristic numbwits with.
St Maurice of the Theban Legion
Patron Saint of the Infantry, Infantryman, Alpini and Swiss Guards.
Roman Christendom: Saint Maurice: martyr, black saint, Knight Commander of the Theban Legion and Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
Since all were men were created equal There had to be a way to justify the keeping of black slaves so those who were jealous of an ex slaves success could take the lend off them. pre darwin people turned to the bible for an answer. As we all know you can find anything in the bible if you look hard enough.
Far from freeing people the bible and religion have been consistently used to counteract the natural instinct most people have to treat one another fairly. The claims of the religious that religion is a moral compass for us all ad has led the way to a moral society stand up to no more than a few minutes consideration. Look at the current fundamentalist imams in islam and the behaviours and attitudes of the current pope. Role models? please!
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332822 wrote: My obsession with what, Bruv?
You have more than one ?
You have more than one ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332899 wrote: Roman Christendom: Saint Maurice: martyr, black saint, Knight Commander of the Theban Legion and Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
Did Saint Maurice have a pet chimp called 'Bubbles'?
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
Did Saint Maurice have a pet chimp called 'Bubbles'?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332906 wrote: Did Saint Maurice have a pet chimp called 'Bubbles'?
I was making a serious point glaswegian, in the middle ages they stopped portraying him as black. . Took me a couple of minutes to get where you were coming from.
posted by bruv
You have more than one ?
Try asking him about his favourite flute band.
I was making a serious point glaswegian, in the middle ages they stopped portraying him as black. . Took me a couple of minutes to get where you were coming from.
posted by bruv
You have more than one ?
Try asking him about his favourite flute band.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332907 wrote: I was making a serious point glaswegian...
I know you were.
Have you been playing your John Calvin records again?
I know you were.
Have you been playing your John Calvin records again?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332908 wrote: I know you were.
Have you been playing your John Calvin records again?
Never liked obscure glasgow bands. In case you get tired of godtv
YouTube - vatican's Channel
same theme less music and variety.
Have you been playing your John Calvin records again?
Never liked obscure glasgow bands. In case you get tired of godtv
YouTube - vatican's Channel
same theme less music and variety.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332773 wrote: Any individual who enters into a discussion should be prepared to have his mind altered - otherwise why enter into it? Discussion presupposes a willingness on the part of those who participate in it to change their existing attitudes, beliefs and opinions should the arguments put forward in the discussion require it.
But this is precisely what the religionist is not prepared to do. For his mind is closed to arguments - no matter how rational and cogent they might be. When the religionist enters into a discussion he is already in possession of ‘Absolute and Eternal Truths’, and these are not subject to negotiation or change in his view. Merely to question these ‘Revealed Truths’ is to risk offending him¦and worse. The punishments meted out to those who have questioned or even doubted the ‘Revealed Truths’ of Religion have been dire indeed - and the most cursory glance at Religion's dark history will confirm this.
I mean, how can one hope to accomplish anything through discussion with the following mindset:
‘Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise.’ (Koran 4: 56)
Can you imagine a scientist talking like this? Can you imagine a physicist, for example, saying:
‘Those that deny ‘The Theory of Relativity’ We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Einstein is mighty and wise.’
Any member of the science community who came out with stuff like that would be suspected of having lost his wits.
Unlike religionists, rational human beings regard discussion as an opportunity, not as a threat. Because they know that through it they can abandon ideas and beliefs which are erroneous, ridiculous and dangerous for better ones.
We are the most dominant animal on this planet right now, K, because we can place our great intelligence at the disposal of our unparalleled capacity for savagery and violence any time we choose. This is a ‘talent’ we will not give up easily. Laws exist to keep it in check.
My point in general is that you cannot change the mind of anyone past the point in which they claim "sanity". Their "sanity" is who they are. No one can change who these people are. Therefor it can only be observed. Dealing with the effects is the concern. On one hand you have religious organizations that consist of a group of people that devote their lives to helping people in need. It's irrelevant to ask how they've come to have the desire to help people. It's irrelevant to ask a scientist why he or she is a scientist regardless of their discoveries, it's the discoveries that ascertain the acceptance of others. The scientist's that created the atomic bomb by your logic can then rightfully be considered very evil individuals. "scientist's" that created food preservatives and pesticides can be viewed as equally as evil. Both sides see fault for their actions so it's inappropriate to consider only one of them to be "wrong". What we can do is observe each individual instance and then decide that the instance was wrong and deal with the instance not the person. This lumps everyone together into one group which negates the need to become prejudice toward another while condemning the actions of those individuals.
The more we group people the more blood that will be spilled, nothing is more true than that statement based off of past occurrences. That includes words like "religious" and "scientist"
Religion is irrelevant to a crime in the same sense if an "atheist" were to commit the same crime we ignore the motives of the individual(s) involved by "convenience" and quickly label them "insane" while when concidering the religious persons crime we automatically create a resentment for other individuals that are seen as the same. It's wrong. No one has the right to define "insane" because sanity is relative to every individual, and equally as much as their right. "society" becomes perverted when people claim they hold the right to condemn religion in the same way they may claim the right to condemn "atheists". Both have to be treated as opinion. No one knows how the Universe began so claiming evidence is the key determinate becomes blatantly arrogant and equally as wrong.
Creating a thread entitled "Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?" is different than some creep down the street that was just thrown in prison for having sex with a 9 year old? And somehow a football player having sex with an underage person makes the entire sport inappropriate?
The people are left to decide what is right and wrong for themselves.
By your logic the ancient Greeks are to be considered evil for lying and suggesting the Earth was flat. They mislead people into thinking it was true ultimately halting the progression of science. "They warped people's minds"...Alternatively the Greeks are considered a prime motivator for everything you revere in science though aren't they?
But this is precisely what the religionist is not prepared to do. For his mind is closed to arguments - no matter how rational and cogent they might be. When the religionist enters into a discussion he is already in possession of ‘Absolute and Eternal Truths’, and these are not subject to negotiation or change in his view. Merely to question these ‘Revealed Truths’ is to risk offending him¦and worse. The punishments meted out to those who have questioned or even doubted the ‘Revealed Truths’ of Religion have been dire indeed - and the most cursory glance at Religion's dark history will confirm this.
I mean, how can one hope to accomplish anything through discussion with the following mindset:
‘Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise.’ (Koran 4: 56)
Can you imagine a scientist talking like this? Can you imagine a physicist, for example, saying:
‘Those that deny ‘The Theory of Relativity’ We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Einstein is mighty and wise.’
Any member of the science community who came out with stuff like that would be suspected of having lost his wits.
Unlike religionists, rational human beings regard discussion as an opportunity, not as a threat. Because they know that through it they can abandon ideas and beliefs which are erroneous, ridiculous and dangerous for better ones.
We are the most dominant animal on this planet right now, K, because we can place our great intelligence at the disposal of our unparalleled capacity for savagery and violence any time we choose. This is a ‘talent’ we will not give up easily. Laws exist to keep it in check.
My point in general is that you cannot change the mind of anyone past the point in which they claim "sanity". Their "sanity" is who they are. No one can change who these people are. Therefor it can only be observed. Dealing with the effects is the concern. On one hand you have religious organizations that consist of a group of people that devote their lives to helping people in need. It's irrelevant to ask how they've come to have the desire to help people. It's irrelevant to ask a scientist why he or she is a scientist regardless of their discoveries, it's the discoveries that ascertain the acceptance of others. The scientist's that created the atomic bomb by your logic can then rightfully be considered very evil individuals. "scientist's" that created food preservatives and pesticides can be viewed as equally as evil. Both sides see fault for their actions so it's inappropriate to consider only one of them to be "wrong". What we can do is observe each individual instance and then decide that the instance was wrong and deal with the instance not the person. This lumps everyone together into one group which negates the need to become prejudice toward another while condemning the actions of those individuals.
The more we group people the more blood that will be spilled, nothing is more true than that statement based off of past occurrences. That includes words like "religious" and "scientist"
Religion is irrelevant to a crime in the same sense if an "atheist" were to commit the same crime we ignore the motives of the individual(s) involved by "convenience" and quickly label them "insane" while when concidering the religious persons crime we automatically create a resentment for other individuals that are seen as the same. It's wrong. No one has the right to define "insane" because sanity is relative to every individual, and equally as much as their right. "society" becomes perverted when people claim they hold the right to condemn religion in the same way they may claim the right to condemn "atheists". Both have to be treated as opinion. No one knows how the Universe began so claiming evidence is the key determinate becomes blatantly arrogant and equally as wrong.
Creating a thread entitled "Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?" is different than some creep down the street that was just thrown in prison for having sex with a 9 year old? And somehow a football player having sex with an underage person makes the entire sport inappropriate?
The people are left to decide what is right and wrong for themselves.
By your logic the ancient Greeks are to be considered evil for lying and suggesting the Earth was flat. They mislead people into thinking it was true ultimately halting the progression of science. "They warped people's minds"...Alternatively the Greeks are considered a prime motivator for everything you revere in science though aren't they?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote: As the author of the OP it is my privilege to give it whatever title I choose.
In this thread I intend to address a number of unsavoury issues about Islam. So think of the thread’s title as a sort of ’umbrella’ under which these issues can be subsumed.
Indeed you do, and the title you choose for the thread indicates the subject you wish to discuss within the thread.
The only way in which the subject you have chosen, as defined by the title you have given to the thread, can be meaningfully discussed is in relation to the culture within which he lived and, possibly, the cultures of the peoples surrounding his.
That you have consistently refused to do so and that the subsidiary subjects you have placed under this "umbrella" do not relate to the title shows that you chose the title to inflame and offend rather then as the starting point of a discussion.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile given the fact that he had sexual relations with a nine year old girl.
If I had sexual relations with a nine year old girl then I would expect the same question to be asked about me.
So why shouldn’t this question be asked about Muhammad? - irrespective of the fact that he founded a religion.
Have you read any of the points I have raised? Posts 21, 42 and 49 cover this exact point.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
You were the one who used the words "guilty of paedophilia" in the context of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, not I.
and post 41 covers this one.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
I hope your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice, Bryn. If it is then be ashamed, and think of the courageous apostates of Islam who risk their lives criticising this religion. Here is one to inspire you:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
Would you care to expand on how I have displayed "moral cowardice"? Or is this another cheap shot? You appear to specialise in the use of tired little barbs rather than discussing the issue at hand.
In this thread I intend to address a number of unsavoury issues about Islam. So think of the thread’s title as a sort of ’umbrella’ under which these issues can be subsumed.
Indeed you do, and the title you choose for the thread indicates the subject you wish to discuss within the thread.
The only way in which the subject you have chosen, as defined by the title you have given to the thread, can be meaningfully discussed is in relation to the culture within which he lived and, possibly, the cultures of the peoples surrounding his.
That you have consistently refused to do so and that the subsidiary subjects you have placed under this "umbrella" do not relate to the title shows that you chose the title to inflame and offend rather then as the starting point of a discussion.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile given the fact that he had sexual relations with a nine year old girl.
If I had sexual relations with a nine year old girl then I would expect the same question to be asked about me.
So why shouldn’t this question be asked about Muhammad? - irrespective of the fact that he founded a religion.
Have you read any of the points I have raised? Posts 21, 42 and 49 cover this exact point.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
You were the one who used the words "guilty of paedophilia" in the context of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, not I.
and post 41 covers this one.
Glaswegian;1332356 wrote:
I hope your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice, Bryn. If it is then be ashamed, and think of the courageous apostates of Islam who risk their lives criticising this religion. Here is one to inspire you:
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
~o0o~
Would you care to expand on how I have displayed "moral cowardice"? Or is this another cheap shot? You appear to specialise in the use of tired little barbs rather than discussing the issue at hand.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Bryn Mawr;1332956 wrote: Indeed you do, and the title you choose for the thread indicates the subject you wish to discuss within the thread.
The title certainly does indicate this. But why are you pretending there is nothing more to it than that? You know very well that a discussion often branches off in a number of directions, throwing up interesting points and topics along the way. It is in the nature of a discussion for that to happen. So why shouldn’t such points and topics be addressed whenever they arise? I am for free and open discussion wherever it might lead. I think a thread title should work to stimulate discussion, not constrain it. And I hope that the title of this thread does the former.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The only way in which the subject you have chosen, as defined by the title you have given to the thread, can be meaningfully discussed is in relation to the culture within which he lived and, possibly, the cultures of the peoples surrounding his.
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile. According to you, we have no right to make any moral judgement about this matter because we are so removed in time and place from Muhammad and his culture.
Who are you trying to kid?
In this world there are millions of Christians who have made a moral judgement about the behaviour of Jesus, an individual who lived two thousand years ago. They think that Jesus’s behaviour is so exemplary that they seek to emulate it in their own life today. If all these Christians can make a moral judgement about Jesus’s behaviour in this way then why can’t I and others make a moral judgement about the behaviour of Muhammad who lived fourteen hundred years ago?
~o0o~
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has described Muhammad as a pervert regarding his sexual relationship with Aisha. Would you deny her the right to express this view, Bryn?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Would you care to expand on how I have displayed "moral cowardice"?
I said that I hoped your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice. So tell me: is it? I mean, you aren’t worried about it incurring anyone’s wrath. Right?
You have said that the title of this thread is offensive. This means that you must have some idea in your mind about who it causes offence to. Would you care to identify who this is?
The title certainly does indicate this. But why are you pretending there is nothing more to it than that? You know very well that a discussion often branches off in a number of directions, throwing up interesting points and topics along the way. It is in the nature of a discussion for that to happen. So why shouldn’t such points and topics be addressed whenever they arise? I am for free and open discussion wherever it might lead. I think a thread title should work to stimulate discussion, not constrain it. And I hope that the title of this thread does the former.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The only way in which the subject you have chosen, as defined by the title you have given to the thread, can be meaningfully discussed is in relation to the culture within which he lived and, possibly, the cultures of the peoples surrounding his.
In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile. According to you, we have no right to make any moral judgement about this matter because we are so removed in time and place from Muhammad and his culture.
Who are you trying to kid?
In this world there are millions of Christians who have made a moral judgement about the behaviour of Jesus, an individual who lived two thousand years ago. They think that Jesus’s behaviour is so exemplary that they seek to emulate it in their own life today. If all these Christians can make a moral judgement about Jesus’s behaviour in this way then why can’t I and others make a moral judgement about the behaviour of Muhammad who lived fourteen hundred years ago?
~o0o~
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has described Muhammad as a pervert regarding his sexual relationship with Aisha. Would you deny her the right to express this view, Bryn?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Would you care to expand on how I have displayed "moral cowardice"?
I said that I hoped your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice. So tell me: is it? I mean, you aren’t worried about it incurring anyone’s wrath. Right?
You have said that the title of this thread is offensive. This means that you must have some idea in your mind about who it causes offence to. Would you care to identify who this is?
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote: I said that I hoped your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice. So tell me: is it? I mean, you aren’t worried about it incurring anyone’s wrath. Right?
What's the difference between "wrath" and "cowardice" exactly?
What's the difference between "wrath" and "cowardice" exactly?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332899 wrote: As we all know you can find anything in the bible if you look hard enough.
The Bible, like the Koran, is a goldmine for those who seek moral justification for perpetrating acts of horror and depravity. Its pages are replete with God-sanctioned evils.
Take this one commanded by Moses in the name of 'the Lord', for example:
‘Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’ Numbers (31: 17-18)
Only an individual whose moral sensibility has been polluted and perverted by religion can read a text like this and think that it is in any way connected with a loving and merciful ‘God’. For this text involves nothing more than a tribe of brutal stone age thugs arrogating to themselves the ‘Divine right’ to commit genocide and satisfy their lusts with little girls.
In the words of Thomas Paine, it is ‘an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters’.
The Bible, like the Koran, is a goldmine for those who seek moral justification for perpetrating acts of horror and depravity. Its pages are replete with God-sanctioned evils.
Take this one commanded by Moses in the name of 'the Lord', for example:
‘Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.’ Numbers (31: 17-18)
Only an individual whose moral sensibility has been polluted and perverted by religion can read a text like this and think that it is in any way connected with a loving and merciful ‘God’. For this text involves nothing more than a tribe of brutal stone age thugs arrogating to themselves the ‘Divine right’ to commit genocide and satisfy their lusts with little girls.
In the words of Thomas Paine, it is ‘an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters’.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1333006 wrote: What's the difference between "wrath" and "cowardice" exactly?
wrath (noun)
1. great anger: strong anger, often with a desire for revenge
2. divine retribution: in some beliefs, God’s punishment for sin
3. vengeance: the vengeance, punishment or destruction wreaked by somebody in anger (literary)
cowardice (noun)
lack of courage: an absence of courage, or behaviour that is cowardly
~o0o~
I hope the above is of use, K.
wrath (noun)
1. great anger: strong anger, often with a desire for revenge
2. divine retribution: in some beliefs, God’s punishment for sin
3. vengeance: the vengeance, punishment or destruction wreaked by somebody in anger (literary)
cowardice (noun)
lack of courage: an absence of courage, or behaviour that is cowardly
~o0o~
I hope the above is of use, K.
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1333014 wrote: wrath (noun)
1. great anger: strong anger, often with a desire for revenge
2. divine retribution: in some beliefs, God’s punishment for sin
3. vengeance: the vengeance, punishment or destruction wreaked by somebody in anger (literary)
cowardice (noun)
lack of courage: an absence of courage, or behaviour that is cowardly
~o0o~Retribution is cowardice, Glas. You've created contextual genocide
Glaswegian;1333014 wrote: I hope the above is of use, K.:yh_laugh Nice touch! :yh_wink :yh_wink
1. great anger: strong anger, often with a desire for revenge
2. divine retribution: in some beliefs, God’s punishment for sin
3. vengeance: the vengeance, punishment or destruction wreaked by somebody in anger (literary)
cowardice (noun)
lack of courage: an absence of courage, or behaviour that is cowardly
~o0o~Retribution is cowardice, Glas. You've created contextual genocide
Glaswegian;1333014 wrote: I hope the above is of use, K.:yh_laugh Nice touch! :yh_wink :yh_wink
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote: The title certainly does indicate this. But why are you pretending there is nothing more to it than that? You know very well that a discussion often branches off in a number of directions, throwing up interesting points and topics along the way. It is in the nature of a discussion for that to happen. So why shouldn’t such points and topics be addressed whenever they arise? I am for free and open discussion wherever it might lead. I think a thread title should work to stimulate discussion, not constrain it. And I hope that the title of this thread does the former.
I pretend nothing of the sort. Certainly a thread wanders – you start a thread and begin by discussing the subject in the thread title and that discussion throws up side issues that also get discussed.
However, in this case you start with a title and ask the question with no intention of discussing the subject raised. The linking of the original question to paedophilia within the current day Catholic Church backed up by the most bigoted commentary you could find proves that.
Your thread title was not chosen to stimulate discussion but to generate argument – a big difference.
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote: In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile. According to you, we have no right to make any moral judgement about this matter because we are so removed in time and place from Muhammad and his culture.
Who are you trying to kid?
In this world there are millions of Christians who have made a moral judgement about the behaviour of Jesus, an individual who lived two thousand years ago. They think that Jesus’s behaviour is so exemplary that they seek to emulate it in their own life today. If all these Christians can make a moral judgement about Jesus’s behaviour in this way then why can’t I and others make a moral judgement about the behaviour of Muhammad who lived fourteen hundred years ago?
Where have I said this? Instead of inventing a position for me why do you not try reading what I have written and responding to it.
By considering the actions of a person within the framework of the time and place in which he lived it is possible to make a judgement about the morality of those actions. By considering those actions purely in terms of current morality it is not possible to do so.
The only way you can possibly claim that the current set of moral values that you adhere to are absolute and unvarying, which is what you are saying by the arguments you have put forward, is by claiming that they are God given. Anything short of that and you are saying that all people of all ages must live by your moral code – who are you trying to kid?
For example, amongst the Aztecs it was their firm religious belief that the Gods must be propitiated by human sacrifice. The chief priest of the Aztecs was involved in carrying out hundreds of such sacrifices.
Would you condemn him as immoral for not cutting the bonds of those sacrifices and releasing them? Do you imagine that he would have live for five minutes after the first time he tried?
We might condemn the culture as immoral according to our values but we can hardly condemn the chief priest for his actions.
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote:
~o0o~
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has described Muhammad as a pervert regarding his sexual relationship with Aisha. Would you deny her the right to express this view, Bryn?
Not in the slightest – I'm sure she has her reasons for expressing those views and it is her right to express them. No knowing those reasons or the arguments she uses to reach them I am in no position to comment on them
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote:
I said that I hoped your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice. So tell me: is it? I mean, you aren’t worried about it incurring anyone’s wrath. Right?
You have said that the title of this thread is offensive. This means that you must have some idea in your mind about who it causes offence to. Would you care to identify who this is?
As I thought, an attempt to insinuate that I am without the justification to do so.
So in answer to your silly little barb – why should I worry about it incurring anybodies wrath, it's not my title and yes, I'll identify who it has caused offence to – ME.
I pretend nothing of the sort. Certainly a thread wanders – you start a thread and begin by discussing the subject in the thread title and that discussion throws up side issues that also get discussed.
However, in this case you start with a title and ask the question with no intention of discussing the subject raised. The linking of the original question to paedophilia within the current day Catholic Church backed up by the most bigoted commentary you could find proves that.
Your thread title was not chosen to stimulate discussion but to generate argument – a big difference.
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote: In the OP, I asked whether or not Muhammad should be viewed as a paedophile. According to you, we have no right to make any moral judgement about this matter because we are so removed in time and place from Muhammad and his culture.
Who are you trying to kid?
In this world there are millions of Christians who have made a moral judgement about the behaviour of Jesus, an individual who lived two thousand years ago. They think that Jesus’s behaviour is so exemplary that they seek to emulate it in their own life today. If all these Christians can make a moral judgement about Jesus’s behaviour in this way then why can’t I and others make a moral judgement about the behaviour of Muhammad who lived fourteen hundred years ago?
Where have I said this? Instead of inventing a position for me why do you not try reading what I have written and responding to it.
By considering the actions of a person within the framework of the time and place in which he lived it is possible to make a judgement about the morality of those actions. By considering those actions purely in terms of current morality it is not possible to do so.
The only way you can possibly claim that the current set of moral values that you adhere to are absolute and unvarying, which is what you are saying by the arguments you have put forward, is by claiming that they are God given. Anything short of that and you are saying that all people of all ages must live by your moral code – who are you trying to kid?
For example, amongst the Aztecs it was their firm religious belief that the Gods must be propitiated by human sacrifice. The chief priest of the Aztecs was involved in carrying out hundreds of such sacrifices.
Would you condemn him as immoral for not cutting the bonds of those sacrifices and releasing them? Do you imagine that he would have live for five minutes after the first time he tried?
We might condemn the culture as immoral according to our values but we can hardly condemn the chief priest for his actions.
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote:
~o0o~
AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Fearless critic of Islam
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has described Muhammad as a pervert regarding his sexual relationship with Aisha. Would you deny her the right to express this view, Bryn?
Not in the slightest – I'm sure she has her reasons for expressing those views and it is her right to express them. No knowing those reasons or the arguments she uses to reach them I am in no position to comment on them
Glaswegian;1332999 wrote:
I said that I hoped your bleating about this thread isn’t born of moral cowardice. So tell me: is it? I mean, you aren’t worried about it incurring anyone’s wrath. Right?
You have said that the title of this thread is offensive. This means that you must have some idea in your mind about who it causes offence to. Would you care to identify who this is?
As I thought, an attempt to insinuate that I am without the justification to do so.
So in answer to your silly little barb – why should I worry about it incurring anybodies wrath, it's not my title and yes, I'll identify who it has caused offence to – ME.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
K.Snyder;1332955 wrote: The more we group people the more blood that will be spilled, nothing is more true than that statement based off of past occurrences.
This is precisely what makes authoritarian religions like Islam and Christianity so dangerous and destructive for our species, K. These religions are inherently divisive. They cannot help but group people since each of them claims to exclusively possess the ‘Absolute God-Given Truth’. It is in the nature of an authoritarian religion to designate its own adherents as comprising the ‘in-group’ and everyone else as comprising the ‘out-group’. The in-group, of course, are the true-believers, the chosen people, and the saved whereas the out-group are the infidels, the enemies of God and the damned. When a religion asserts that its 'Revealed Truths' and 'holy texts' are absolute, final and obligatory for all then every other religion which asserts the same about itself is necessarily in conflict with it. Intolerance and enmity are intrinsic features of an authoritarian religion because all other religions are, by the very fact of existing, perceived as rivals by it.
For example, the Catholic Church’s proclamation Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’) is the basis on which it divides the human race into the in-group and the out-group. For Islam, this is done on the basis of its belief that it has been favoured with the 'Complete and Final Revelation of God' via Muhammad: thus, the world is divided by it into Dar al-Islam (the sphere of Islam and the true believers) and Dar al-Harb (the sphere of War and the infidels).
Regarding Islam, for those who believe that it is a religion of peace then the following video may help to disabuse them of their fantasy:
YouTube - Islam - What the West Needs to Know 1
This is precisely what makes authoritarian religions like Islam and Christianity so dangerous and destructive for our species, K. These religions are inherently divisive. They cannot help but group people since each of them claims to exclusively possess the ‘Absolute God-Given Truth’. It is in the nature of an authoritarian religion to designate its own adherents as comprising the ‘in-group’ and everyone else as comprising the ‘out-group’. The in-group, of course, are the true-believers, the chosen people, and the saved whereas the out-group are the infidels, the enemies of God and the damned. When a religion asserts that its 'Revealed Truths' and 'holy texts' are absolute, final and obligatory for all then every other religion which asserts the same about itself is necessarily in conflict with it. Intolerance and enmity are intrinsic features of an authoritarian religion because all other religions are, by the very fact of existing, perceived as rivals by it.
For example, the Catholic Church’s proclamation Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’) is the basis on which it divides the human race into the in-group and the out-group. For Islam, this is done on the basis of its belief that it has been favoured with the 'Complete and Final Revelation of God' via Muhammad: thus, the world is divided by it into Dar al-Islam (the sphere of Islam and the true believers) and Dar al-Harb (the sphere of War and the infidels).
Regarding Islam, for those who believe that it is a religion of peace then the following video may help to disabuse them of their fantasy:
YouTube - Islam - What the West Needs to Know 1
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Was The Founder Of Islam A Paedophile?
gmc;1332899 wrote: Roman Christendom: Saint Maurice: martyr, black saint, Knight Commander of the Theban Legion and Patron Saint of the Holy Roman Empire
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
I take it you mean that Saint Maurice underwent this metamorphosis at the hands of European artists - in the same way that Jesus went from being a Semite to a Caucasian.
If Hollywood film-makers are to be believed then Jesus hailed from Sweden.
But who can blame them? For all we know, Jesus may have been a Mongolian hunchback with bulging eyes.
He was a black african as were those who were martyred with him. in the middle ages he became white.
I take it you mean that Saint Maurice underwent this metamorphosis at the hands of European artists - in the same way that Jesus went from being a Semite to a Caucasian.
If Hollywood film-makers are to be believed then Jesus hailed from Sweden.
But who can blame them? For all we know, Jesus may have been a Mongolian hunchback with bulging eyes.