Cue the "Well the Old Testament law (Mosiac) was deemed invalid by Jesus" argument now. And then watch them still quote Deuteronomy and Leviticus to condemn homosexuality.
Look, you can find flaws in anyone's argument on the basis of "live and let live". But you can't deny the hatred and terrorism that is rooted in Islam and carried out by it's extremists - what do you recommend is done about it? Or will it take your kid being blown up to make a change. If you take a look back and really study religion, it's just there because people are unhappy. And they need a safety net to blindly follow. I'm not anti-Islam, I'm pro happiness. But I know not everyone can dance like me so they're gonna be miserable and feel sorry for themselves.
That part of your post is utterly ridiculous. It's just like saying "the core sentiment about being a moderate Muslim and being Osama Bin Laden is quite the same. Osama Bin Laden just took it to the extreme with his actions". That would be an insane thing to say. Do you realize now how stupid your statement is? It should be allowed to criticize an ideology (or elements of it) without being accused of "the core sentiment being the same" as a mass murderer.
Of course it's insane, that was a bit of the point, but it's interesting to learn how much he loathes the ideology. Consider it a measuring stick, of sorts. He simply dismissed it, which is interesting in and of itself.
Fair enough, however extremism and terrorism aren't just the purview of Islam. This holds true today and throughout history, from idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church to Breivik to Timothy McVeigh to the Aum Shinrikyo "Buddhist" sect that hit Tokyo with sarin gas, and even the Crusades. Being mindful that violence carried out in the name of any religion is important. Nutters are everywhere. I do agree that many find happiness and comfort in religion and that more than a few need a set of rules to bide by. The problem arises when people squabble over whose rules are the "right" ones or when people use those differences as a basis for hatred.
Let's take Deuteronomy 2:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Other translations don't use the word rape. If you speak Aramaic or Hebrew you will understand the differences. And this is what the late great Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wrote concerning this issue: ... “If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29] Spoiler Accordingly, one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape. For instance: Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111). Matthew Henry: “... if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.). J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237). In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118). Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412). Even if one has some question about the applicability of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the clear and decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.” In this text there is no question whatsoever of forcible rape. The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29). When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following commentators indicate: John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84. J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122). Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible ... with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414). Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: ... he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173). James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148). Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged .... Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107). (Bahnsen, Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?, PE152, Covenant Media Foundation, 1992) spoiler for length. 2 Samuel 12:11-14 was a prophesy of King David's son sleeping with his wives, an act which is frowned upon. I didn't 'just wave' your verses off. You just posted your verses with out any explanation for them. It is the same drivel posted on every anti-Christian site out there, that has been clearly refuted by both Biblical scholars and scholars with no religious affiliation. Anyone who doesn't drool on themselves knows this. So again, where did God, or Jesus say it was ok to rape women? And you never did respond or answer my questions to you, too hard?
So, since some people don't like the literal translation they come up with things that make them feel better about the whole thing? Got it. shakab doesn't HAVE to mean forced intercourse, although that is one of the meanings. It just doesn't happen to be a meaning you're comfortable with. Deuteronomy is pretty interesting, really, considering most of it is probably older than the time of David, despite being attributed to Moses, at least according to Jerusalem scholar Mosheh Ḥayyim Cassuto. See, I can find people to say stuff too! I'm unsure how God could have dictated these laws to Moses based on that. Some scholars thing Joshua wrote the last eight verses. A barely literate bronze aged people playing telephone probably isn't the best way to preserve exact meaning, huh? What questions did I not answer? The only thing I can find was tucked away in your inane system of answering in-line without quote tags. Does he ever mention them specifically? I know some erm...scholars? Creative thinkers and interpreters? like to claim Matthew 19:4 ( And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’”) means that Jesus wants people to follow his dad's plan of one man and one woman (except concubines and multiple wives - that's fine) or that John 5:46-47 (“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” ) combined with the fact that Jesus was born under the law of Moses to say Jesus specifically condemned homosexuality (Since it's legal in some places, does that negate the John section there?). We all know the tired old verses about homosexuality (supposedly) in the OT, so obviously god hates ****. Of course this is a bit of a stretch, but the bible is one of the most intentionally plastic books ever written and it's fun to make a vague book that has been translated and edited more times than one can count and make it say what you want/hope for it to say, so long as it fits in your world view and you can convince yourself of the "true" meaning. Oh yeah... Do you define fornication as unlawful sexual intercourse? By whose law? If it's unlawful by the law of Moses then didn't that end at the cross for many? Is it a sin in places where it's legal? Now, let's talk about my unanswered questions, shall we? To which I replied, "Go for it since you're a Muslim scholar." I'm still waiting. I also asked, "Now, as to your thoughts on Muslims and Islam. That's pretty easy. You don't hate Muslims, but you do strongly dislike Islamic ideology and Quranic teachings. Is that fair to say? " No answer. Too tough? I also asked this, "You do realize you answering style makes quoting difficult, don't you?" but it was mostly rhetorical (notice how easy it is to read when properly quoted though? And if you want to quote me back, it's just as easy!), as was the irony or hypocrisy query.
Moses came before David from memory...but you knew that didn't you. And barely literate? In whose opinion? yours? Also do you agree that you were wrong when you stated that GOD condones and advocates rape? Added for you...(via edit) Q 4:24 "And all married women are forbidden unto you EXCEPT those captives whom your right hand possesses. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery..." Also Read about the massacre of the Banu-Qurayza & the savage rape of Raihana Bint Amr after just slaughtering her family, which most muslim historians still quote as her "willing submission to Islam and wifehood to the Prophet". Or when Mohammed attacked the Banu-L-Mustaliq, his men came to him and asked if it was ok to rape the captured women, but not ejaculate in them... "We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we wanted to get the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use the "Azl" (Coitus Interruptus- where the man withdraws before ejaculating)...We asked the Prophet about it and he said: "You are not under any obligation to stop yourselves from doing it like that.." Later on the women and children were given for ransom to their envoys. They all went away to their country and not One wanted to stay although they had the choice.." I would continue but there is no need, read the Quran and hadiths for yourself. Google it.
Here is an old thread discussing whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam, which several of us participated in: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=211208&highlight=moderate+muslim I thought this post (in response to my equating the mentalities of Al Q and European leaders as extremist mentalities) was particularly interesting and may be relevant to this thread: Also perhaps relevant: That's Breivik. Edit: No editing of quotes was necessary to create this post. Nothing has been posted here out of context, which is why the link to each thread and article is posted.
That was my mistake in editing my post. I was writing about David on another point, decided against it and made some edits, but missed that bit. Obviously, I meant Josiah, although the texts were edited heavily after that. But you knew that, didn't you? Mine and several scholars. William Harris says 5-10%, Catherine Hezser says 10-15%, and Harry Gamble claims a very high 15-20% literacy rate during new testament times. Or do you consider that highly literate? Scribes were needed for a reason. Old Testament times were lower. Please refer to: Ian Young's "Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence: Parts I and II" as well as Richard Hess' "Literacy in Iron Age Israel". No, actually I don't agree at all. You're simply doing more handwaving, explaining away, AND ignoring my other statements and questions. Way to go, Paterno. I find this doubly humorous since you tried to call me out for not answering your questions earlier. Truly, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. No need, I've read it. Mathloom has already set you straight on many topics related to Islam and the Quran. I'll look these up later if I have time. I'd wager they all came from http://answering-islam.org though.
I don't disagree with those explanations of the verses but the Quran is the same way. To be able to understand the Quran completely, one must know Quranic Arabic. Not many do know it and that's why it's context gets twisted to make it sound different from the actual meaning. Reading the English translation only won't make someone a scholar on Islam. Just like what mclawson did with Deuteronomy can be done and has been done on the Quran numerous times.
all you ****ing religous r****ds sound the same, that much is ****ing obvious. Yea there are radical ismalist crazy idiots, but what I find so ****ing hilarious are all the religous christians on here that act like all this **** is so far removed from their religon and what they preach. So hypocritical. I've heard some crazy **** in church, so bash other religons all you want but don't deny all the **** that comes with christianity.
You want everyone to get along and not worry about religion, while constantly attacking Islam and saying that you hate Islam? Good luck, brother.
Osama Bin Laden Some quickly assembled statements by Mathloom: (He is obsessed with the topics of US bases on Muslim land...on "holy ground".) Mathloom also posted Al Qaeda propaganda videos here: Etc. etc. etc. etc. The guy is a fanatic.
Manufacturing content and knowingly endangering my life, well done, and thank you. Won't change the fact that you lied in this thread and got caught.
Nothing manufactured - all actual quotes, as anyone can see when they click on the link. Endangering your life? How so? Don't you overestimate the significance of a message board discussion a bit? Lied? Got caught? In your head, maybe. But we see all the stuff that comes out there all the time, so...
Partial quotes. Don't act stupid, you have posted about people who got caught for message board discussion. You are lying again.
