WEll, the obvious argument for PoR is because the Bible and/or The Church says so. I mean, you can say that you don’t give a fig what the Bible or the Church says, but then, what the heck are you doing ina church in the first place?
We Catholics believe in the Word of God and the Sacred Tradition.
um…okay, but…
OH MY GOD I CANT EVEN ARGUE WITH YOU ANYMORE!!!
your rationalization (note: rationalization; not reason) is that “god told me so” …well why this god? judaism was here waaay before christianity, why oh why are you so convinced that this is the “right path”. seriously, the more i speak with you, the more turned off to the religion i get.youre worse than those mormon boys that give you cards with Jesus and bibical quotes on them… 
note: disregard that last post…its useless anyways, i mean, PoR wll just give me a (very) indirect answer… but ill leave it there cos it was a waste of nerves…
embracetrees
I am convinced Christianity is the right path because Jesus said ‘I am the way, the life and the truth.’ now, how direct do you want? anyway, take it easy, peace be with you.
then how do you know catholicism is the right christian path, versus being a baptist, jesuit, messianic jew, evangelical, protestant or lutheran?
I know…but initially you made it a point to (out of nowhere) bring in how “Islam” justifies violence against raped women (which it does not), and in my response to that I decided I should also address the post of Qur’anic verses just to point out how people who know nothing about a religion go and make stupid assumptions. I was not referring to you; I was referring to the site’s author.
I understand your point here, and you are correct in where you are coming from. But I must point out that the Saudi monarchy is hardly Muslim. Muslim by name, yes, but they are not practicing Muslims in the least…according to any interpretation of the book. Furthermore, they implement cultural practices under the guise of Islam in order to get away with things such as the subjectification of women.
It is a well-known fact that the Bible has been edited. Muslims, since the revelation of the Qur’an, followed only the Qur’an. They did not follow both the Qur’an and the Bible. That would cause way too much conflict. Once the Qur’an was revealed, it was the Qur’an and only the Qur’an that Muslims adhered to.
Tell me, in the 7th century exactly how many females were of the same degree as men to study anything? Women were simply not very literate back then…anywhere in the world.
Again, I repeat…how is this offensive?? It’s a biological issue. It’s not putting down women.
I would not be surprised if many Qur’anic verses correspond with Biblical ones. Islam was in many ways a reinforcement of Judeo-Christian beliefs. We believe that the same God who revealed the Bible also revealed the Qur’an. I don’t see why He would make any radical changes.
The verse is saying that it is PERMISSIBLE to have sex with your wife whenever you want. It’s simply establishing the permissibility of sex…not the authority of a man to compel his wife to have sex with him. It says nothing about having sex with her against her will. There’s a huge difference.
Again, you’re just taking the verse at face value. Do you think it’s just to annoy women? There’s actually great wisdom behind this. The reason women have to wait is in case they are pregnant with their husband’s child and do not know. That’s why the waiting time is a reasonable three months.
Why are you repeating the same question after I specifically explained why two female WITNESSES are required? Do me a favor & read up on domestic violence cases in the United States. Women nearly always change their story on the stand. Women are more emotional. It’s a fact.
Again, you disregarded my explanation about the population imbalance, widows, etc. Women did not have the same opportunities as men. If they were single, widowed, etc, they were screwed. And like I said, for men who married ten women, four was a great limitation. Obviously things are different today. Everything has its time, and I agree that today, it is not helpful to society for a man to marry more than one. Fourteen hundred years ago and for a long time after that, it was.
Absolutely.
I did click the link, and I think after spending my life reading the Qur’an, I think I understand the general idea of verses more than some chump who creates senseless and distorted annotations to be funny. The translation I wrote down was the direct translation from Arabic. It’s permitting men to withhold the dowry from their wife if she is flagrantly lewd. I don’t see how that is offensive in any way.
I know, and I am not attacking you. I am simply pointing out that in order to see moral and ethical flaws in ANY book, you must understand it first.
noetician… you yourself realize that the books are morally flawed.
If you know that the statements of women are morally ludicrous today, how can we take ANY of what is said in these books as being morally valuable today? it was written for and in a different time as you yourself said:
Except for the upper class of the time most were not very literate. Catholics and christians relied onthe pastor to read the bible in latin until the 14th or 15th century AD.
BUT, women still were designated higher “class” and more rights than they were in the Islam parts of the world during the same time and even today.
if you don’t understand why it’s not ok to call a biological issue “hurt, harm or sickness” there’s no use of me explaining it.
yes even when she isn’t willing.
does it specifically say that? of course not. The problem with interpretation is that it doesn’t say that.
hello sexism. Like there’s no overly emotional men in the world? There’s no good way to justify this verse face it, and by doing so you’ll just dig a deeper hole.
Yes it was a different time. Explain to me how:
A) that justifies there actions.
B) such teachings can apply to modern times.
WHY rewrite something that already exists?
AH, that’s right.
how do you explain the dead sea scrolls and the torah and other ancient scrolls that corraborate what is in the old and new testament?
How do you explain that such beliefs in Muslim aren’t recorded until the 12th century AD?
and such a belief contradicts the Qu’ran:
5:46
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
The “torah” being the “old testament (the first five books at least)” and the “gospels” being the “new testament”.
No. Just because the explanation for polygamy had a more sound basis 1400 years ago does not mean that it is morally flawed. In the West, yes, with the way society works we would laugh at someone who had more than one wife, and I don’t see a need for it, given the opportunities for women. It MAY be the case that somewhere else in the world, such a law would be useful. Things are different in the rest of the world than they are here. If a man in some unfortunate part of the world where people eat one meal a week decides to take on two widows, both with kids and both indigent, I don’t find it morally reprehensible at all. Furthermore, the Qur’an itself discourages polygamy by warning men that it is a great responsibility and they must be completely just with their wives, and that it is very difficult to do so. Just because it is permitted in the Qur’an does not mean it is encouraged. Sometimes the situation calls for it. The fact that our society does not necessitate such a law does not mean I concede that the book is morally flawed. I should have specified.
Not morally ludicrous at all. The fact that a law was more fitting fourteen hundred years ago than it would be today does not reflect on its morality. I was referring to society.
Women were extremely degraded until Islam came along. Look at the history of Arabia. Women were nothing before Islam.
Women were deemed property even in early United States history…llooonnng after Islam abolished such a notion. In fact, Islam even gave women the right to participate in politics and vote. When did America finally catch up? Not too long ago.
In terms of HEALTH and having sex while you’re menstruating, dude. It’s not offending WOMEN. It’s just saying don’t have sex while you’re menstruating.
I’ve repeated this way too many times to have to repeat it again. You’re making stuff up. You’re deriving your own meaning from the verse; a meaning that is not even implied. Read any explanation/interpretation and you will find that you are wrong.
Sexism? I’m a female. And it’s a fact. Yes, there are overly emotional men in the world. But I’m speaking about the general population, and I even gave you a very common and clear situation. Read up on it. Heck, talk to a judge and see what he tells you.
Same reason the Bible was rewritten when the Torah existed. The Bible was already adulterated by Mohammad’s time. Muslims believe in 124,000 messengers from God. I explain the Qur’an in the same way I explain all of 124,000 messengers. People became corrupt, religions became adulterated, people needed a reinforcement. For example, trinity. To Muslims, it is a great sin to associate anything with God, and we believe that Jesus made no statements that he was of the divine sort. Even the Qur’an addresses the notion of trinity. Perhaps it was this notion—the notion of God having such associations—that necessitated the coming of a new prophet who reinforced the oneness of God. When Mohammad received his revelations, many religious Christians became Muslims, as they knew it was a continuance of their true religion. On the other hand, there was no need for a prophet after Mohammad because the Qur’an was never altered or edited in the least. Not a word.
How does it contradict the Qur’an? Like I said, Muslims believe in 124,000 messengers. If everything was peachy keen, why have more than one? We believe in Jesus and Moses as true prophets of God, we believe they received divine revelations from God, and we respect them just as we respect Mohammad. My above comment answers this question.
HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)
I believe poligamy is currently practiced in various African nations. I have heard there is a country in Asia where there are so few women that each woman can marry multiple men. This is a need based system–similarly, the same applied to the 7th Century and it could apply today if the need arose.
Scythekain… you are missing many of her points. I recommend you reread without your steadfast beliefs–you may find much of this information useful and accurate–just as I have.
Regards,
-THIRST
this is ludicrous. not a word has been changed in 1400 years? are you serious? most secular scholars disagree with that.
atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/i … _quran.htm
many other interesting editing problems are revealed in this document. not that’ll change your mind on the subject.
oh yeah, that makes it ok. 
unfortunately it does, but that doesn’t mean the qu’ran is exclusive as far as this is concerned, the bible as PoR showed by starting this thread can be used to justify anything that today we consider morally and ethically wrong.
Women are still degraded in large parts of the Islam world and as I’ve shown you can interpret the Qu’ran, bible or whatever holy book to justify such treatment.
It’s not JUST saying to not have sex it’s calling it a sickness. (or hurt and harm which you being a women should now it’s not hurt or harm.)
ok, next time I goto traffic court and there’s a female judge I’ll demand that her judgement is not valid because she needs to have another female judging with her.
That’ll go over well don’t you think?
or even better next time they call a jury they should call 2 females for every male.
Again THAT would go over well.
The bible wasn’t rewritten. show actual proof of this. The context of the bible from the dead sea scrolls and the hebrew torah is the same as all but the PC versions of the bible (PC = politically correct.)
No it wasn’t and they didn’t believe that until the 12th century.
Do I believe that? Do christians believe that? do jews believe that, which came BEFORE Islam?
you can claim that Islam existed since creation but these beliefs much like the christian baptism are additions, and were not here since “creation”.
john 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Verified via ancient texts as being there BEFORE Islam. not edited not added.
Jesus did make such statements. And we know from uncovering ancient texts that he made such statements.
yes because no “prophets” came after Mohammed…
except David Koresh, the found of the jehovah witnesses (forget his name) Joseph Smith, who like mohammed talked to angels.
So what makes your prophet so much greater than the ones before and after?
knowing these things:
the qu’ran has been edited.
The qu’ran like all other holy books is internally contradictory.
Mohammed like other prophets thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The bible’s context (esp the new testament) is unchanged from it’s conception.
HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)
What is wrong with two willing women marrying one willing man? Or two willing men marrying one willing woman? Are you sure your exposure to Christian values hasn’t influenced your judgment of moral issues? What’s wrong with poligamy if everyone is willing? Are you against it because it is weird? Aren’t you the one that argues homosexual marriage should be allowed? Now suddenly we get judgmental on people’s rights?
Re-evaluate your position my friend and you will realize that you are responding from the gut of your moral background and not with your mind. Perhaps I am too though… when I tell you this, I would rather a man marry two women than a man marry another man… but I am a jerk though and have no qualms about it.
You and I have discussed Islam before and other religions. When we speak of a religion we must separate doctrine from practitioners. In other words, you cannot necessarily judge a religion by its followers because you cannot be sure those followers are practicing the pure form of that religion. Is POR representative of all Christians? Heck no! There are certainly millions like him though… the same applies for Muslims.
Basically, grabbing a few texts from the Qur’an and using it to assert a position is foolish. The same applies to the bible. I recall I saw Embracetrees arguing that “do onto others as you would have them do onto yourself” meant that you shouldn’t tell people that they will go to hell unless they believe in Jesus. Do you think this is a strong position?
What makes you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls weren’t rewritten? An accurate copy of a rewritten document is still a tampered version… Also, many more scholars debate the accuracy of the bible than of the Qur’an.
Also, it is irrelevent that Judaism came before Christianity and that Christianity came before Islam… if Judaism is mired in fact, then it is VERY possible that Christianity is the new revelation of god’s word, and if Christianity and Judaism are mired in fact, then it is very possible that Islam is the latest (or last) revelation of god’s word.
However, I will add the following: it is presumptous of Muslims to think that their religion is the final revelation of god. It can be argued that the final revelation of god’s word came through the apostles. While Jesus never personally wrote down his teachings neither did Mohammad. We have no reason to believe that the writers of the gospels would distort the words of Jesus anymore than the writers of the Qur’an would distort the words of Muhammad. To suggest otherwise opens up a whole new issue… which should be discussed in another forum. Please?
I will conclude with the following: since it is very, very, very likely that there is no god, it is more than likely that all these religions are wrong and based on nothing more than a creation of mankind: the notion of god. Moreover, it can be argued that religion is simply an attempt to bring organization to its followers…
My two cents… now, a penny for your thoughts. 
[size=67]P.S. As George Carlin asked… What the fuck is so special about sliced bread?[/size]
enough said…
Scythecain, you have missed so many of noetician’s points you are almost unworthy of her reply. But I have a tip for you: Since you seem to have a huuuuuge problem with something very simple, I will offer you a gift of clarity. That is, 1. you constantly, in your mind overlap and confuse 1) what happens in the middle east with 2) Islam. And when noetician says something like “Islam strictly forbids the rape of women” or whatever, you reply with something like “oh yeah, it happened in Saudi Arabia yesterday so there! Islam DOES permit it.” You are not entitled to your claim in all situations like this.
Second, I will repeat to you what I said to you in the “FOR ALL YOU LEFTIES” thread in the Rant House in response to your describing Mohammad as
:
You are inappropriately committed to your opinions on matters that hold truth value. Needless to say, your lack of study is made evident by your contentions and you are often on the wrong side with regard to interpreting the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam. You have not yet begun a real debate on the religion since you have not sufficiently, or even insufficiently learned it and thus not even understood its principles. You create positions for Islam that do not exist and argue against them citing some practices in the pan-Arab world.
Would you ever try to engage in a debate against Kant’s metaphysics without reading Critique on Pure Reason? You would be foolish to do so. Further, would you not seek guidance in your study of this most complex text e.g. Ph.D’s in philosophy, university courses, directed studies, etc.? Most of any academic calibur would encourage you to do so. But you attempt to mount an assault on Islam in such an undignified and unacademic way. You haven’t any real knowledge on the religion which you’ve glaringly affirmed. Your claims are false. You are not entitled to draw your conclusions therefore. You were the first person I engaged in conversation with on this website. You might not remember but you claimed there is no God. I told you that Descartes, Aquinas, and Anselm would have a good reply for you and asked you for your argument against God so that we may engage in a debate. You did not provide one. So I offered Descartes’ proof for the existence of God to give you a platform by which you can mount a rebuttal. You replied with some senseless remarks that exhibited that you did not even understand Descartes’ argument. To refresh your memory: ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … t=#1647083 You have made claims that do not apply to your opponents positions since your opponent does not hold the positions you attack. A friendly encouragement to study something before attacking it. You are playing on a chess board but following the rules of checkers. You are playing alone. You are a lone man in a field at night, in the dark sword in hand, you swing your sword violently, uttering insults to your enemy. You fight no one. No one is there scythecain. It is cold, and you are naked.
The mouth of Scythecain is the fountain of all ignorance.
as for your information, the Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself.
HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)
The Catholic Church was created a couple of centuries after Jesus’ reported crucifixion. The Catholic Church is not the church Jesus left to the apostles.
-Thirst
no I actually have researched this topic, polygamy whether with multiple men or women always leads to insane jealousy. It’s human nature, for whatever reason it’s not in our nature to be accepting of such a thing. You can say that “their willing to be polygamous.” and I’ve seen a PBS show about 2 couples that lived together and shared partners. At the end of the show they (after 4 years of living together) they broke off the arrangement because of jealousy.
As for a society that only goes one way? it’s subjugating to women, like they have to be married and can’t be single. An unmarried woman is a wasted womb.
maybe some day we’ll be able to partake in polygamous style relationships (where either men and women can have multiple partners) without jealousy developing, it’s certainly possible!
I thought I made it clear that I don’t see all muslims the same, my point is that there’s more atrocities happening under the banner of Islam than the banner of any other modern religion. Can you deny that, that is true?
In egypt you can get Jailed for being christian.
In saudi they don’t allow women to vote, and apply the rule of “1/2 man”
of course you can I SAID you can.
scythe SAID:
Women are still degraded in large parts of the Islam world and as I’ve shown you can interpret the Qu’ran, bible or whatever holy book to justify such treatment.
that’s my point is that the book can be so misinterpreted because it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. (neither does the bible!)
Look at the first link, 1 of 5 lines is totally uninterpretable.
Why are you backing her and muslims up? if a position is flawed you should point out the flaws. Were the dead sea scrolls rewritten? unlikely if you know anything about hebrew tradition. Part of growing up hebrew (and essene!) is that it was tradition to copy the bible and repeat it.
many more scholars? you mean many muslim scholars. No western scholars debate it that much if anything they research it for the sources of the myths contained within. It’s only muslims who think the book has been edited to be useless. And that their book is perfect and unedited. How can you stand behind such a logically unsound statement?
ok using that logic why not say that the love Israel group is the last of god’s word? or the jehovah witnesses? or the scientologists? or the mormons?
You can’t continually say that god’s word is continually being revealed when they keep adding things and contradicting previous revelations.
and it is important which came first so you can see what they took from Judaism and what they took from local pagan religions (just like christianity took baptism and resurrection from local pagan religions).
It’s important from the social evolution point of view. It’s important to debunk the thought that Islam has been around since creation.
I’ve gone through this many times with PoR before showing him the problems contained within the bible, why when I do the same to Islam do you feel the need to get all PC and tell me, I’m spouting lies and not listening to what their saying? You’re not actually buying into the fact that mohammed is a prophet are you?
if you do feel he was what makes later prophets invalid? why don’t we just validate every religion that claims to talk to god?
let’s keep the world exclusive. I know it’s what you want thirst.
perhaps.
that’s exactly what judaism was. An attempt to bring order to society. Christianity was something different.
jesus said “I give you one rule love one another as you would want to be loved.”…
think about it… Islam isn’t teaching even close to the same thing so how can they even proclaim the same prophetic line?
christianity was used to control the masses as well, but through christianity like buddhism one can find the way. If one compared the end result of one’s beliefs you’d see that christianity is really the most liberal of the monotheistic religions. While it can lead to whacked out fundamentalists like Islam, it seems that because you don’t have the strict regulations controlling your behavior (like praying to mecca 3 times a day.) it’s more likely for a liberal christian to become “awakened.”
what do you think? think I’m full of crap?
avicenna:
You are inappropriately committed to your opinions on matters that hold truth value. Needless to say, your lack of study is made evident by your contentions and you are often on the wrong side with regard to interpreting the Qur’an and the teachings of Islam. You have not yet begun a real debate on the religion since you have not sufficiently, or even insufficiently learned it and thus not even understood its principles. You create positions for Islam that do not exist and argue against them citing some practices in the pan-Arab world.
scythe:
why would I trust Islam to be honest about it’s past? That’s be like asking bush to be honest about the Iraq war. Or christians to be honest about the lack of evidence for christ.
HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)
Not sure what you are trying to get at… but always is a strong choice of words followed by human nature. Human nature is a indicator of and very rarely an absolute of… In the U.S. we have reached over 50% divorce rate. Does this mean the government shouldn’t allow people to get married because of the majority chance that it will end in failure? Besides, if a woman can divorce a man so can two women divorce a man or two men divorce a woman…
OK, but when people interpret something that they do not have a grasp on–or have not read in full–we end up with gobbledygook. Essentially, if I gave you a few lines from the Jedi code I could probably make them look wicked. They clearly have something against those poor Sith, they want to kill all the Sith. Damn Jedi are evil and are war mongerers… I truly hope you hear me out on this… 
It’s hard to think you are commenting with knowledge and removing your personal feelings when you write posts/comments like the ones above. Please continue reading… I do not back her up or Muslims or Christians, or atheists, or agnostics, or buddhists, or any other person.
[cue dramatic musical score]
I back up the truth which is on NO ONE’s side.
The truth is that I have studied Christianity for years and barely feel competent to comment on Christian doctrine. A religion’s doctrine is not as easy as finding a website that tells you everything they know… it is not as easy as picking up a few verses here and there… it is not as easy as reading a couple of pages… There is so much more to Christianity than anti-homosexual comments, there is so much more to Judaism than killing for land, and there is so much more to Islam than Saudi Arabia… I side with the truth. There are many great things about Islam and there are many great things about religion. There are also bad things in both–namely: the notion of god being misappropriated by all religions.
[end dramatic musical score]
Agreed. Still leaves room for the editing block… think about Genesis and its various inconsistencies with regards to the character of god. Have you read Genesis lately? It’s a MUST read–time and time again.
What? Where did I say I stood behind this? I don’t! The Quran’s veracity is JUST as questionable as the bible. In fact, many argue that the bible is the word of god, flawless and unedited. My opinion, both are man made creations that have changed (even if only slightly) since the teachings of its prophet.
Well, the logic is sound. It DOES allow pretty much anyone to come forth and claim that they are the “greatest thing since sliced bread”. 
In fact, if I am not mistaken, Islam allows for the coming of one last prophet–I’m sure sometime soon there will be a claim that they have arrived. Somewhat similar to how Christianity allows for the second-coming of Christ.
Sure you can… god can change the rules anytime. Why? Because he wants to… or more specifically because the creators of the new version of god want to.
Umm… I pretty much avoid Pinnacle of Reason’s posts. No offense POR… so I haven’t seen the ones you refer to. Do you recall though that you and me were on the opposite sides of a debate on Christianity (maybe it was god)?? I stand on the side of truth.
What you are missing is that if the PREVIOUS prophets are valid, then NOTHING precludes us from saying that the LATTER prophets are valid.
[size=134]They are all fake—god never spoke to any of them![/size]
I don’t know what you mean… could you clarify?
Nope. It was only different in the TYPE of organization it brought to society.
How can you assert this? Have you read the Qur’an from cover to cover? How many times? Which translations? How much do you know about the Qur’an? Do you get your information from websites? Do you even OWN a Qur’an?
I think you are mistaken and have very little or little to base your assumptions on–this is why we often disagree on the bible/god too. However, I think you are a smart guy and I think there is hope you can see past the bullshit.
Thank you, sythekain, for the nice summation of your perspective:
Clearly this is what it comes down to. You are simply refuting everything I say because I am Muslim, and it is Islam I am defending. Thirst is not backing me “and the Muslims†up. His replies have nothing to do with the mere fact that I am Muslim or that it is Islam I am defending. He is defending logic. If I made a stupid point, Thirst would likely point out that it was a stupid point (maybe in a nicer way). He is pointing out that you are making blind arguments, and that you are disregarding everything I tell you. It is the mark of an educated mind, Scythe, to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it (I owe that one to Aristotle). And that is what thirst is doing. He has an open, educated mind, that is able to entertain various thoughts and point out that something “makes sense†without feeling as though he is giving in to “the Muslims.†Maybe you should take a pointer from him. Don’t be so defensive. Don’t refute everything just because it is Islam, and you don’t accept Islam. You can read up and understand Islam but still refrain from accepting it.
You’re hilarious. I’m refuting what you say with facts and argument. You keep repeating nothing but allegations, and references to sites. First of all, you can find a site on ANYTHING. The internet is not necessarily the most reliable source. Rather than googling sites to bring you negative “information†about Islam, why don’t you thoroughly read up on Islam yourself? Why don’t you critically read positive and negative articles, books, etc? In fact, I challenge you to read a few different articles on each topic; all from different perspectives. Continue to refer to your sites, but go to a few others that may present a different perspective on the same topic. Go read a few books about Islam. Why don’t you go check out the book Islam: The Straight Path by John Esposito, a non-Muslim? I’m not taking what you say and refusing to consider it; I’m taking everything you are saying and I am refuting your allegations with logical explanations and arguments. You, on the other hand, simply repeat your allegations as if you did not read anything I told you.
So…I am quite convinced that any response I give you will fall on deaf ears. Nonetheless…Pre-Islamic Arabia was a place of great debauchery, immorality, and overindulgence. The verses that speak of alcohol were sent down in succession…it was a slow prohibition. Why? Because the people had trouble handing all these restrictions at once. They had enough trouble with Mohammad’s preachings about justice and fair business, which is why many Meccans went against him. His preachings meant an end to this lifestyle they were accustomed to. Thus, God slowly prohibited alcohol so as to not bring in so many difficult requirements and restrictions at once.
I will go into no more depth about polygamy or having sex while menstruating because we have totally exhausted those topics and gotten no where. I’m not trying to make you accept anything. I’m trying to open your eyes. Obviously you refuse to let that happen, so I will allow you to go on the way you choose.
We have also exhausted the women topic in general. I tell you ISLAM raised the level of women, you tell me MUSLIMS still degrade women. You insist that it is baased on an interpretation of Islam and I am telling you this is not the case; it is simply cultural tradition. However, you insist on believing what about.com and other such sites tell you, and if that really makes you happy, then that’s fine. Whatever floats your boat.
Real cute.
I mean to put “rewritten†in quotes, because you asked why the Qur’an was “rewritten†when the Bible existed, so I meant to reply, same reason the Bible was “rewritten†when the torah existed. Just using your words.
Haha… I find that quite laughable coming from you. OK, let me google search a few sites, find the anti ones, and get back to you.
As for the Bible, Mohammad, etc…Like I said, you will not consider a word I tell you and I don’t have the time to type up repeated arguments over & over. If you’re really interested (and vehemently opposed to Islam counts as an interest) then pick up some books and read. It will help your arguments against me and “the Muslims.â€
Hence my phrasing “Muslims believe…†I was explaining Islamic thought concerning the prophets and why Mohammad came, in response to the Qur’anic verse you presented, and your allegation that it was contrary to itself.
Again, I was explaining Islamic thought. Obviously anyone of a different faith does not accept that Mohammad was a prophet.
First of all, I did not compare Mohammad to the previous prophets. In fact, I told you we regard them all pretty equally. As for those after him, Take AD’s advice from the other thread…read up on a biography of Mohammad.
Seriously, what is your problem? Give me one actual ISLAMIC (and I’m not talking Saudi/Egyptian/etc) tradition/Qur’anic verse/authentic saying of Prophet Mohammad that preaches otherwise. Don’t make such rash statements about Islam (“Islam isn’t teaching even close to the same thingâ€) without knowing Islam at all. And don’t try to argue against that. You do not know Islam.
Okay, that made absolutely no sense. What does praying to GOD (not Mecca, only in the direction of Mecca) have to do with whacked out fundamentalists? Every day in our prayers, we thank God for His bounties, we glorify Him for His magnitude, and we prostrate to Him in humility. Please explain the correlation between prayers and “whacked out fundamentalism.†Why don’t you google a few more sites and research the alarming affects of prayer (eep! It’s soothing! aah! It’s therapeutic! Oh my! It allows you to reflect!).
Oh noooo sweetie, why would anyone think that?
I think we agree on a few things:
I disagree with this statement though:
There’s no way to back up that statement either way is there?
like Mohammed was invalid but joseph smith was valid.
Joseph smith and mohammed were frauds but jesus is valid
all modern prophets are valid I only believe in the Torah written in Hebrew.
Do you see the point I’m trying to make? I think you do, you just dislike the abrasive way I’m making it.
guess what I’m a scouring pad not a sofa.
(unless I want to be a sofa, then I’ll set the scouring pad to the side.)
might = right
except when it doesn’t.
christianity is lacking laws for how to live, it was paul and the catholics that INTERPRETED the bible and added those things.
How can I assert this? compare the three religions.
past WHAT bullshit?
That’s from when the books were originally compiled. I think the “5 author” theory of the Torah is a valid and sound theory and the two creation myths and the two scattering myths are just two of many proofs of this. You could go into the different names of god, how occasionally God is refered to as “gods”. etc.
I’m hardly saying that the bible is a holy book. I mean I validate Buddha’s remarks towards how to live as highly as christs, except in some cases christ was bent on dividing mankind as those “with me and those against me.”
I’ve said this in another post, show me something from the prophet mohamed that is as inspired as the sermon on the mount.
who’s to say they aren’t reading it in full? They just aren’t interpreting the same way as you, thus they don’t understand it correctly like you do.
Sorry this is a BS statement, and is part of the problem. We’ve got to realize that these books can be interpreted 9 ways to sunday and none of them are right. That’s right! I said NONE of the interpretations are right.
but none of them are wrong either. unless you take the fundamentalist interpretation and act out on 2000+ year old morals and ethics.
I think people will choose not to get married on their own. This is already happening. When marriage became about love (steph koontz “history of marriage”) instead of about politics it changed the social evolution of love. Marriage is about love now so divorce has become more common because people don’t learn how to deal with the “bad” parts of love (see my post on love in social sciences). Love isn’t all candy and roses. I think that’s another reason that polygamous relationships are doomed to failure, when you love someone you become jealous if they devote more attention to another wife/husband.