That's the least of the "bad things" done in the Old Testament. There are parts that get a lot worse! So, you won't hear my defend Christianity, as you know I have no religion. I tend to view the Abrahamic faiths as a pox on most of humanity. But, if I were to defend Christ a bit, his point was not that we should emulate those of the Old Testament, but to learn from their mistakes. Jesus never advocated doing those things that were done under the Old Covenant, merely to obey the Ten Commandments and to act out of love. If Christians actually did this part--shit--the world would be a lot better off. ~String
I see you are very brave with women, do you need my address so you can find me and kill me too? Why didn't you go after Michael? after all he started this thread... Do you agree with him? Because he is a man and you respect him? or because you are afraid of him? Did Mohamed forget to teach you that being a coward is a shame for a man? Sorry, my msitake... why would a monster that promotes circumsicion of women, killing those who not follow him, and who was a confirmed pedophyle, know anything about bravery when he was obviously a coward himself? My mistake! I just forget who am I interacting with You can continue writting all you want it is a pleasure to see how you expose yourself and what the world can expect from muslims.Be my guest!
yasmin, I'm pretty sure Bells isn't really religious. She's just playing devils advocate. Women's role in society would make an interesting thread. For example, before the Japanese were influenced by China (a patriarchal society) women were often the rulers. Only after the arrival of Confucianism did they begin to be oppressed. Likewise, in England women were free and many time rulers, fighters and leaders - it was only after being "Civilized" were women screwed over. I often wonder how much of a role Irish and Scottish women have played in the modern woman's role in being free in our society? anyway... What role does a fundamental religion play in oppressing women? A lot it seems. But, could it be a correlation? Really should we wonder what prompts societies to become fundamental in the first place? Usually insecurity about the future. What role does religion play in this insecurity? SAM likes to say there's never been an atheist civilization. But, I wonder, is this really saying there's never been a safe and secure and educated civilization for any meaningful amount of time? Does fundamental religion cause insecurity? Is it a produce of insecurity? Both? Some interesting questions. Michael My opinion is Mohammad was not a pedophile. 1) He didn't surround himself with little girls.A pedo would have. 2) Once you realize Mohammad is a Character, a Protagonist in a Story, then you realize the girl was written as 9 years old to ensure she was a virgin - something important for lineage and maintaining power via. That's it. Think about Islam as a Story with all the important bits made up by people in power to ensure they stayed in power and things make more sense.
Did the poor muslim guy ask for your intervention? I agree,I think he needed help and he is really the devil's advocate. I have found out many muslims are not admitting openly that they are really muslims. And I did not go after him because he is muslim but because he made excuses for the killings of muslim women. I cannot be politically correct with people who try to find excuses for those who kill no matter what religion they belong to. That would be the ultimate hypocrisy. The values in a society can be judged by the way it treats the weaker: children, women and elder (women and men). And, by the way, do not apologyze, this is not the first time I've heard Mohamed been a pedophyle, there is another thread that mention the same in more detail, it seems there were several children, not just one. Anyways, it is irrelevant who he was by now, he is dead; the important thing is what muslim people do now based on his teachings and the facts are obvious for any one to see...
Wrong? In a word. He said that the old covenant was broken, that none of it applied. He re-stated the purpose of human relationships was based on love (orthodoxy) rather than physical acts/appearance/rules (orthopraxy): like no pork, shellfish, ways to wash hands, ways to interact, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc. He also removed the need for humans to "go at it alone" and that humans could use Jesus as an intermediary to god. In doing this, he asserted that respect and love was the governing law between human beings, not whether or not they had their foreskin chopped off, if their females were virgins, or that it was somehow acceptable to stone children outside the town if they were misbehaved. ~String
What in the hell are you on about? Since it is obvious you are completely incapable of comprehending the written word, I will make it as plain as possible so that even a demented lemming can understand. A) I am a woman. B) I am an atheist. C) I am not a Muslim (refer to above about being an atheist). D) You have branded me a murderer and a supporter of criminal behaviour such as murder and assault. Something I have demanded you apologise for. Consider this an official warning from a moderator of this site. E) If you think that you can post on this forum and post like a hateful anti-Islamic bigot, think again. I will start showing you the door and recommend a permanent ban from this site. And yes, this is also a warning from a moderator of this site about your anti-Islamic posts in this thread alone. Is that plain enough for you?
If you are so politically correct why did you allow this thread to be started? Do not worry, I will delete my posts and never come back. You are a bunch of hypocrits!!!!
Ah no stick around. Its alright to have politically incorrect opinions. I am not offended by your caricatures of Islam, Muslims or Mohammed. I have gotten used to reading them here on sciforums. Nowadays I just put it down to media and ignorance. Nothing of what you said hasn't been said here before. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yasmin, I wouldn't get too fussed. It does seem that women's rights are shit on, to some degree, in Islamic countries - but then again, that has been the case for most of history since human's started to become "civilized". Female equality is really an anomaly. Communist China - seems that women are becoming equal to men, but, IS that really the case? Capitalist America - seems that women are becoming equal to men, but, IS that really the case? What about Singapore, Japan, Europe, England, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico and India? What about KSA, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey? How about Indonesia? Vietnam? Brazil? Woman's role is society is an interesting topic. IMO Islam is not conducive towards female equality with men. For the people who wrote the Qur'an, they were interested in maintaining the status quo. Compare the massive and rapid rise of females rights in China following Communism versus the stagnate state of female status after the introduction of Islam - we can see that female equity was not a central plank in Islam. Or else females would be free. History show's that's never been the case (outside of some far flung myths, real women living in real societies have been subjugated). IMO institutionalized polygamy is itself not conducive towards female equality within a society. Think about what happens in a society that has institutionalized slavery. Are free people more or less inclined towards social equality? I'd argue less. Are polygamous men, and men wanted to be polygamous, mentally more or less inclined to support the idea of female equality with men? Going back to Communist Chinese. They wanted there to be a equality between men and women and the Communists specifically banned polygamy. They made it illegal. Together with Communist ideology - it has worked and worked quickly. Is Islam was all about making people equal (including women) then slavery would have been banned and females would be equal. But, it's not. Islam is about using superstition to control people. it's not about freedom. Mohammad made this clear when he sent his thugs to destroy Mecca. It's about bending the knee to God - and oh ho, in this case that'll be his Prophet. Pretty normal for that time period. See: Alexander, Julius Caesar, etc... the Chinese Emperors were not called the "Son's of Heaven" for nothing.
Depends on what the caricature is aimed at. Is this what you would call an enlightened outlook? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Relax a bit. So you were 100% wrong about Bell. It happens. Try not to have such a huge chip on your shoulder.
This is an affront to dogs everywhere!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Where does this guy get off drawing dogs like that??? Obviously offering $100,000 for his murder is entirely justified (an extra $50,000 if you slit his throat). Islame must be protected from cartoonists insulting dogs!!!
Well I bet he is more well known now than he was before. Clearly he wanted to add some drama to his life and now has it in full measure. He managed to get the attention of the people he wanted to bring into the limelight. Surely he feels vindicated? Its even more fascinating when you consider that the purported head of al Qaeda in Iraq was an Egyptian [sometimes Iraqi] actor lending his voice to a pseudo organisation. Really, amazing drama in real life. A fictional character affronted over a caricature.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
