|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:20 pm
brainnsoup xxEternallyBluexx brainnsoup xxEternallyBluexx brainnsoup xxEternallyBluexx Okay, some examples I picked from the net (and before we go on, yep the Bible has harsh punishments too, but Jesus did away with those, while no Muslim prophet has done the same for the Koran.): Related sites: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/drinking.htm http://www.womensenews.org/story/religion/051007/how-progressives-look-at-women-the-koran http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/flogging_and_stoning_adulterer.html
Because if you found it on the website like that, then the site itself is incredibly biased.
I am not extremely close with anyone who is a Muslim, so I don't really know the human aspect of it, what effect it has on people removed from the culture of the country.
But the way I see it, the bible includes murder, slavery, and extreme sexism, but my Christian friends never think about those parts or even know they exist.
It's there, but it's not a celebrated part of the religion.
Also, the first and last quote are pretty similar to Christianity.
Women are expected to be subservient.
People who were not born into Christianity or strayed from it are expected to convert or be damned to Hell.
Maybe the punishments are not as severe. In life at least.
But then Christianity has eternal Hell of torture.It was exactly like that on a website I didn't feel like linking. I could go dig it up again if you want me to. I'm friends with someone who converted to Islam, but she doesn't take it seriously. She's really just fooling around with it, and believing only what ever she feels like believing. >.< What I know about the subject is based off what I've read in true accounts. Do those parts exist in the OT or the NT? And verses? How does Hell tie in to the extreme disrespect found in Islam? I think justification of Hell is a discussion for another time.
And the Bible doesn't share those parts exactly, of course, but it still encourages cruelty in human parts.
But I bring up Hell because you post examples of cruelty in Islam, but none seem as cruel as the Christian idea of Hell.
It seems that Christianity shares the idea that people who commit the slightest sin be punished cruelly and mercilessly as well, they just leave it up to God.Of course they are. People are biased. You don't have to read the sources, just read the verses and you'll still find the Koran is cruel, especially towards women. I can't put it in context or offer an argument without verses. sweatdrop What, you want us to control our God? If He's in charge, all we can do is ask that He'll intervene in a person's life, and try to talk to people (and just take a look at how unpopular that is. Remember the Evangelical topic? People are either indifferent or negative for the most part). Anyway, if it were up to me...well, I'm just glad it's not. I like it in God's hands. Besides, there's a world of difference between people being judged by an omnipotent, perfect, omninescent, loving God who created us all, and people (women especially) being judged by the men of their lives. The imperfect, sinful men. And considering you don't believe in Hell, who are you going to worry about? The Christians who are going to Heaven anyways, or the Muslim women in other countries being treated cruelly in the reality of this material world? Plus, as far as you know, Hell's an idea. You can't really fault someone for an idea, can you?
Islam could argue that those punishments are God's will as well.
Isn't that the point of them? To follow His orders?
And even in Christianity, Eve was created from Adam. Women are supposed to be obedient. Our (American) culture changed. Not the bible.
I do not believe in Hell.
But the idea of Hell shows that Christianity has the same violent wish for vindication to those who have done wrong.
But what Christianity wishes on people is far worse.
Ideas are the windows into how we really think.
Something about me, I don't judge on action, I judge on intention.You could do that, and then I could try and put those verses in context, just like someone could take the verses I got from the Koran, and put then in context for me. Read Captivating. It's insightful on what the Bible says about women, and it explains a Christian women's role. Plus it's beautiful, and the author really gets people. Really? What if you just think Hell real, and you don't want to see people go there? Am I cruel for believing in Hell?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:23 pm
Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx *blinks* I'm afraid your conclusion makes little sense to me. If God had wanted Abraham to take Hagar as a wife and have Ishmael, then I think He would've told him to. I think the lack of punishment is more evidence of God's mercy and favor for Abraham rather then a sign that He approved. ( xp )I shall use your logic. I'm sure if God wouldn't have wanted Abraham to take Hagar to wife and have Ishmael, I'm sure He would have told him not to. Let me point out King David as an example as to why your logic fails: David sent a women's husband to the front line's so he would die, and David could marry his wife. Now the Lord never told him not to do this. Despite this, the first child he had with this women died. Now where does my logic fail? David did this for selfish purposes for his own purposes? Because King David tried to twist the law of marriage by basically stating "it's not wrong if I marry, instead of just making concubines" which is what David wanted was basically concubines. My point was that God seemed to guide Abraham a lot, especially in major decisions, and also that God doesn't always tell people not to do something. Oh good, so then God guided Abraham to marry a second wife. Nope, my point was God didn't guide Abraham to have Ishmael, so he shouldn't have. Just because we do something (or even just because Abraham does something) doesn't automatically make it God's will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:26 pm
Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow Actually you did state it was in direct violation of His law. I have been stating that it was no where in the Bible that God does neither condone nor hate polygamy. You have been stating that God does not like polygamy, therefore He proposedly punished Abraham. Please point out/quote the post where I said that, as well as a reference to the page number. And I do expect something along the lines of 'Polygamy is in direct violation of His law' as well as no 'I think's' or 'in my opinions'. I want to know where I used an absolute on this subject. I am challenging you on this expecting you'll fail, because I am almost never completely sure of myself. Somewhere you must have started misreading me, and that wouldn't bug me, except you're putting words in my mouth too. Quit it, because it's not fair to argue with someone who's twisting my opinion, the facts I present, and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Disagree with me all you like, but would you disagree with my opinion, and not what you're putting in my mouth? neutral I'm not putting words in your mouth, from the statements you made, you basically said that it was against God's command. Quote: It doesn't sound to me like God was in support of Abraham taking things into his own hands. We're supposed to lean on Him, not to doubt God and take matters into our own hands, as was the case with Abraham taking a second wife and having Ishmael. You stated there, that Abraham took matters into his own hands, believing he was God, and doing things on his own, rather than believing in God, which is against God's command. This is where I came to the conclusion that you believe polygamy is against God's command, which no where does it explicitly state that it is not. Selfishness, adultery, and unrighteousness are. And you cannot deny that there were times when polygamy was not used for those purposes and it was expressly commanded by God to perform these things. Such is the case with Brigham Young. He no where desired to take another wife, but he provided a home and a man of the house for many widows. I said at the beginning I didn't think it said in the Bible polygamy was wrong. If you're going by things I implied, well then that's not my problem. As long as I didn't come right out and state something, then I don't have to back it up. Okay you just used very circular logic up there to make it seem as though I implied a stronger argument then I have. >< I came right out and said I don't think the Bible says polygamy's wrong from the beginning of this argument, and you completely ignore that and try and force another opinion on me. Nice. stare Like there's a lovely bolded line (I also don't think the lines next to it were my words either) up there that I apparently 'said' but can't seem to find in any of my posts. When someone says you said something you didn't, as is the case, isn't that called 'putting words in another's mouth'? 'Was expressly commanded'? Prove it. Back it up with a verse. And who? State what you like, I proved my point whether you like it or not. And if you don't know who Brigham Young is, then you really have no room to decide if Mormons are occultists or not, for you have no knowledge of Mormons whatsoever if you have no idea who Brigham Young is. I bet you have even heard of BYU. You should delve some into other religions before calling out others. So basically you're stating you're right whether I like it or not? That's not a great way to win a debate. I'm not calling out a religion, but a point about Abraham. I don't believe I said a thing about Mormons in this discussion, therefore you're doing that thing again where you assert I took a stance I didn't. Again, nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:02 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Let me point out King David as an example as to why your logic fails: David sent a women's husband to the front line's so he would die, and David could marry his wife. Now the Lord never told him not to do this. Despite this, the first child he had with this women died. Now where does my logic fail? David did this for selfish purposes for his own purposes? Because King David tried to twist the law of marriage by basically stating "it's not wrong if I marry, instead of just making concubines" which is what David wanted was basically concubines. My point was that God seemed to guide Abraham a lot, especially in major decisions, and also that God doesn't always tell people not to do something. Oh good, so then God guided Abraham to marry a second wife. Nope, my point was God didn't guide Abraham to have Ishmael, so he shouldn't have. Just because we do something (or even just because Abraham does something) doesn't automatically make it God's will. God didn't guide Abraham to have Issac either. Just like David was never guided to have Solomon. They chose to procreate and thus had kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:59 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Please point out/quote the post where I said that, as well as a reference to the page number. And I do expect something along the lines of 'Polygamy is in direct violation of His law' as well as no 'I think's' or 'in my opinions'. I want to know where I used an absolute on this subject. I am challenging you on this expecting you'll fail, because I am almost never completely sure of myself. Somewhere you must have started misreading me, and that wouldn't bug me, except you're putting words in my mouth too. Quit it, because it's not fair to argue with someone who's twisting my opinion, the facts I present, and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Disagree with me all you like, but would you disagree with my opinion, and not what you're putting in my mouth? neutral I'm not putting words in your mouth, from the statements you made, you basically said that it was against God's command. Quote: It doesn't sound to me like God was in support of Abraham taking things into his own hands. We're supposed to lean on Him, not to doubt God and take matters into our own hands, as was the case with Abraham taking a second wife and having Ishmael. You stated there, that Abraham took matters into his own hands, believing he was God, and doing things on his own, rather than believing in God, which is against God's command. This is where I came to the conclusion that you believe polygamy is against God's command, which no where does it explicitly state that it is not. Selfishness, adultery, and unrighteousness are. And you cannot deny that there were times when polygamy was not used for those purposes and it was expressly commanded by God to perform these things. Such is the case with Brigham Young. He no where desired to take another wife, but he provided a home and a man of the house for many widows. I said at the beginning I didn't think it said in the Bible polygamy was wrong. If you're going by things I implied, well then that's not my problem. As long as I didn't come right out and state something, then I don't have to back it up. Okay you just used very circular logic up there to make it seem as though I implied a stronger argument then I have. >< I came right out and said I don't think the Bible says polygamy's wrong from the beginning of this argument, and you completely ignore that and try and force another opinion on me. Nice. stare Like there's a lovely bolded line (I also don't think the lines next to it were my words either) up there that I apparently 'said' but can't seem to find in any of my posts. When someone says you said something you didn't, as is the case, isn't that called 'putting words in another's mouth'? 'Was expressly commanded'? Prove it. Back it up with a verse. And who? State what you like, I proved my point whether you like it or not. And if you don't know who Brigham Young is, then you really have no room to decide if Mormons are occultists or not, for you have no knowledge of Mormons whatsoever if you have no idea who Brigham Young is. I bet you have even heard of BYU. You should delve some into other religions before calling out others. So basically you're stating you're right whether I like it or not? That's not a great way to win a debate. I'm not calling out a religion, but a point about Abraham. I don't believe I said a thing about Mormons in this discussion, therefore you're doing that thing again where you assert I took a stance I didn't. Again, nice. I'm tired of this ridiculous argument that you do not have a base on. So I throw my hands up, YOU WIN. That's all you wanted anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:33 pm
Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow I'm not putting words in your mouth, from the statements you made, you basically said that it was against God's command. You stated there, that Abraham took matters into his own hands, believing he was God, and doing things on his own, rather than believing in God, which is against God's command. This is where I came to the conclusion that you believe polygamy is against God's command, which no where does it explicitly state that it is not. Selfishness, adultery, and unrighteousness are. And you cannot deny that there were times when polygamy was not used for those purposes and it was expressly commanded by God to perform these things. Such is the case with Brigham Young. He no where desired to take another wife, but he provided a home and a man of the house for many widows. I said at the beginning I didn't think it said in the Bible polygamy was wrong. If you're going by things I implied, well then that's not my problem. As long as I didn't come right out and state something, then I don't have to back it up. Okay you just used very circular logic up there to make it seem as though I implied a stronger argument then I have. >< I came right out and said I don't think the Bible says polygamy's wrong from the beginning of this argument, and you completely ignore that and try and force another opinion on me. Nice. stare Like there's a lovely bolded line (I also don't think the lines next to it were my words either) up there that I apparently 'said' but can't seem to find in any of my posts. When someone says you said something you didn't, as is the case, isn't that called 'putting words in another's mouth'? 'Was expressly commanded'? Prove it. Back it up with a verse. And who? State what you like, I proved my point whether you like it or not. And if you don't know who Brigham Young is, then you really have no room to decide if Mormons are occultists or not, for you have no knowledge of Mormons whatsoever if you have no idea who Brigham Young is. I bet you have even heard of BYU. You should delve some into other religions before calling out others. So basically you're stating you're right whether I like it or not? That's not a great way to win a debate. I'm not calling out a religion, but a point about Abraham. I don't believe I said a thing about Mormons in this discussion, therefore you're doing that thing again where you assert I took a stance I didn't. Again, nice. I'm tired of this ridiculous argument that you do not have a base on. So I throw my hands up, YOU WIN. That's all you wanted anyways. Actually, I just wanted you to stop putting words in my mouth. Considering how minor this point is, it was really the what you said came out of my mouth that bugged me, and not the point you were arguing. Sorry for being sarcastic and cutting though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:39 pm
Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx Let me point out King David as an example as to why your logic fails: David sent a women's husband to the front line's so he would die, and David could marry his wife. Now the Lord never told him not to do this. Despite this, the first child he had with this women died. Now where does my logic fail? David did this for selfish purposes for his own purposes? Because King David tried to twist the law of marriage by basically stating "it's not wrong if I marry, instead of just making concubines" which is what David wanted was basically concubines. My point was that God seemed to guide Abraham a lot, especially in major decisions, and also that God doesn't always tell people not to do something. Oh good, so then God guided Abraham to marry a second wife. Nope, my point was God didn't guide Abraham to have Ishmael, so he shouldn't have. Just because we do something (or even just because Abraham does something) doesn't automatically make it God's will. God didn't guide Abraham to have Issac either. Just like David was never guided to have Solomon. They chose to procreate and thus had kids. He told Abraham he would have a child through Sarah (Issac). Couldn't that be considered guidance? And it mattered more with Abraham because of God's promise concerning his offspring. When God acts in a certain area in your life, you want to be careful how you handle it. Plus in this case, Abraham and Sarah acted on their own because they didn't trust God to come through. The problem was less that Abraham had a child, and more that he tried to have the child God promised him, instead of depending God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:42 pm
As long as all parties consent, I really don't care. It's their life and I have no right to tell them what they can and can not do.
I personally wouldn't participate in one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:19 am
xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow xxEternallyBluexx My point was that God seemed to guide Abraham a lot, especially in major decisions, and also that God doesn't always tell people not to do something. Oh good, so then God guided Abraham to marry a second wife. Nope, my point was God didn't guide Abraham to have Ishmael, so he shouldn't have. Just because we do something (or even just because Abraham does something) doesn't automatically make it God's will. God didn't guide Abraham to have Issac either. Just like David was never guided to have Solomon. They chose to procreate and thus had kids. He told Abraham he would have a child through Sarah (Issac). Couldn't that be considered guidance? And it mattered more with Abraham because of God's promise concerning his offspring. When God acts in a certain area in your life, you want to be careful how you handle it. Plus in this case, Abraham and Sarah acted on their own because they didn't trust God to come through. The problem was less that Abraham had a child, and more that he tried to have the child God promised him, instead of depending God. Actually God just told Abraham to multiply. He promised him that his seed would be as numerous as the stars: Passage Genesis 12:2: Quote: 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Then in chapter 15 God tells Abraham that his children will have the land of Cannaan for their inheritance. And chapter 16 talks about Abraham taking Hagar to be his wife, but Abraham was not reprimanded by God for doing so. Abraham was not told to have Isaac specifically any more than he was told not to have Ishmael. Both are his seed, both received an inheritance, just like the Lord promised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:32 am
MissDemeter I have no problem with it, and I wouldn't mind enetering into such a situation myself. Of course, it's not exactly normal, and would be frowned on in western society, but I'm already bisexual, so I'd probably ruffle the exact same feathers. Polygyny is quite an interesting concept. Polygamy is less desirable to me than polyandry, for I am female. (Polygamy is a man having multiple spouses and polyandry is a woman having multiple spouses) In a perfect world, I'd have a german husband, a german wife and a norwegian husband. You've got that backwards. Polygyny is a man having multiple wives and polygamy is a marriage involving any number and gender of people. Gyny = woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:54 pm
Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Someoneiknow Oh good, so then God guided Abraham to marry a second wife. Nope, my point was God didn't guide Abraham to have Ishmael, so he shouldn't have. Just because we do something (or even just because Abraham does something) doesn't automatically make it God's will. God didn't guide Abraham to have Issac either. Just like David was never guided to have Solomon. They chose to procreate and thus had kids. He told Abraham he would have a child through Sarah (Issac). Couldn't that be considered guidance? And it mattered more with Abraham because of God's promise concerning his offspring. When God acts in a certain area in your life, you want to be careful how you handle it. Plus in this case, Abraham and Sarah acted on their own because they didn't trust God to come through. The problem was less that Abraham had a child, and more that he tried to have the child God promised him, instead of depending God. Actually God just told Abraham to multiply. He promised him that his seed would be as numerous as the stars: Passage Genesis 12:2: Quote: 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Then in chapter 15 God tells Abraham that his children will have the land of Cannaan for their inheritance. And chapter 16 talks about Abraham taking Hagar to be his wife, but Abraham was not reprimanded by God for doing so. Abraham was not told to have Isaac specifically any more than he was told not to have Ishmael. Both are his seed, both received an inheritance, just like the Lord promised. Genesis 18 10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Sarah specifically was to have a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:57 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Genesis 18 10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Sarah specifically was to have a child. You are missing my point. Yes I know that Sarah was supposed to bear children, but Abraham was not condemned for taking Hagar to wife and having Ishmael because he was also a child of Abraham who receieved an inheritance, just like the Lord promised. Abraham was told to multiply so that his seed would be as numerous as the stars and his seed would receive an inheritance. He chose to act so that promise would be fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Shiori Miko As long as all parties consent, I really don't care. It's their life and I have no right to tell them what they can and can not do. I personally wouldn't participate in one. I agree. I notice, I agree with you alot. Hmm....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:32 pm
Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Genesis 18 10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Sarah specifically was to have a child. You are missing my point. Yes I know that Sarah was supposed to bear children, but Abraham was not condemned for taking Hagar to wife and having Ishmael because he was also a child of Abraham who receieved an inheritance, just like the Lord promised. Abraham was told to multiply so that his seed would be as numerous as the stars and his seed would receive an inheritance. He chose to act so that promise would be fulfilled. I didn't say that Abraham was punished (unless you consider having to send your first child away punishment), but that it wasn't the right thing to do, and while Ishmael did recieve an inheirtance, it was more like God cleaning up after Abraham and Sarah then putting a plan into motion, like with Issac, and it was given by God, not by Abraham. Plus Issac got be the ancestor of God's people and His Son, while Ishmael got to be head of a nation opposing God's people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:44 pm
XxBroken_And_ShatteredxX Shiori Miko As long as all parties consent, I really don't care. It's their life and I have no right to tell them what they can and can not do. I personally wouldn't participate in one. I agree. I notice, I agree with you alot. Hmm.... We're just awesome like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
