IS this the consensus in Islam? I mean, this instance made it into the newspaper, and not in the “Weddings and Celebrations” section. When you do read a “man bites dog” story, is your reaction, “Fuckin’ men! They can’t stop bitin dogs!”
If you don’t know one way or another, then the point is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
Apparently not, since there appears to be at least one political subdivision of one Muslim country which condones this behavior.
Self-confidence is a fine thing, but it can be overdone.
Well said.
All Christianity is stupid and backwards. Every single Christian on Earth is doing something stupid by standing by it. But evil is certainly more on the fundy side.
What you’re missing, is that having fundy beliefs makes you evil. Having tepid beliefs makes you a hypocrite. Because if you say you’re a Catholic and ignore 90% of their teachings, all you do is support a religion that you don’t believe in. And by doing so, allow them to keep their evil stances. If every Catholic who uses birth control left the church, the church would allow birth control. Because they aren’t going to take a money hit like that for their dogma.
Get it?
How about we simplify it and just hold that “Christians are teh evil?” 
How about, some are evil, all are stupid? 
I would add that context is important. Why does the evil of Christianity need to be brought up in a discussion about barbaric laws in a predominantly Muslim country?
If the point is that Christians (or Jews) (or Republicans) are just as barbaric as whoever is in charge of Morocco, why not just come out and say it?
The point of my post, which brought up the point that the particular Muslim belief here is actually a Jewish law, was to point out that all of the Abrahamic religions are backwards. It’s just that first world countries ignore the crazier parts of their religions.
Damn. I really need to slow down and think these things through.
How awesome would that be?
Wrong. This is solely based on the Deuteronomy ruling if it is based on any religious principle at all. Remember, Muslims are instructed to consult people of the book on issues not clarified by the Quran. The Quran doesn’t contain the notion of consent at all and implicitly justifies rape against the slaves the right hand possesses. It says that zina (adultery) is an evil act of either member and something to be avoided.
As for whether all Christians are or were stupid: such a gross generalisation fosters intergroup discrimination and is not helpful in the slightest at trying to reach a consensus. Intelligence as a sole virtue is something to be challenged too: there are individuals that are incredibly academic that seem to be devoid of empathy such as Nietzsche. Halford E. Luccock was a decent chap, capable of independent thought and he was a devout Christian.
That said, it does take a certain amount of cognitive dissonance to cede that an omniscient God knew and approved how the words delivered would be interpreted and decided that the Bible would be the best course of action to alleviate human suffering (assuming God is also benevolent). If that is the case, then if the Bible contained an accurate depiction of cosmogeny, people would not record it and Christianity would not catch on. God intended for people to think of slavery as something that was defensible by Christians and condoned, but ultimately abandoned. He wrote some things which are unambiguous and should be enforced in society to this day (man shall not lie with man) and others which are unambiguous and should be abandoned at first opportunity (give all of one’s wealth to the poor).
They’d love to, but they can’t go quite that far. Unless you’re the nitwit called Der Trihs, and maybe a couple of others. Instead they have to satisfy themselves by attempting to attribute ancient beliefs that were held by Jews and Christians thousand soy years ago (and they have since abandoned) with the beliefs that some Muslims hold TODAY. It’s all an attempt to one of two things: 1) piss on all religion, 2) prevent people from seeing that Islam, as practiced by some in TODAY’S world is one murderous, ignorant, evil, misogynistic, barbaric, throwback set of beliefs. For some, it’s 1 and 2.
Quick question here. Anyone can answer. Has Magellan every been right about anything? I mean, even Shodan has been correct a time or two.
Well, I think I was right when I pointed out those few times that I thought you were being funny. And I know I was right the slew of other times I pointed out what a over-comfident, self-important schmuck you were. So there’s that.
But perhaps you could show your glorious feathers of wisdom and point out what, specifically, you thought was wrong about what you cited from me. Was it that I didn’t list you up front with Der Trihs? If so, you may have a point there.
Meanwhile back in Morocco the silence is deafening. A few protests by women activists , an ‘online petition’ and one government minister decrying the law and calling for its abolition. The latter sounds mildly encouraging until you read that the Minister for Women and Families is the only woman in the Islamist government and that her predecessor had also been working to change the law, clearly to no avail.
I have a nasty suspicion that most Moroccan men have no problems at all with this law. The opinions of their wives and daughters of course are of small importance in such a society.
Oh, I see. So you think any sect that does not subscribe to fundy literalism is hypocritical? Even though any serious study of the bible demonstrates that it isn’t internally consistent, so it can’t be taken literally? They have to adopt an insane level of willful stupidity or they’re hypocrites, now?
As for the rest, what makes you think people who do believe the teachings of the RCC (including the priests) are going to willfully adopt positions they believe sinful, just because it will (maybe) keep people from leaving? Do you often adopt positions in violation of your conscience for such mundane reasons? There’s another idiotic position.
Do you get it?
No argument from me on that one. It just irks me when people slam on a minority branch of it for valid reasons, and then smugly assume that it also applies as a valid argument against the majority, when the fundy position they’ve successfully attacked doesn’t remotely resemble the majority doctrine. That just makes one’s position look foolish to those on the fence. Fundies are considered fruitcakes by the majority of Christians who take the trouble to examine what the fundies actually believe. People who assume Fundie = Christian in arguments against that majority wind up looking like fruitcakes, themselves, when they accuse those Christians of believing the fundy version.
No. I think that ignoring what your church says is right, and still belonging to that church is hypocritical.
That’s evidence that the bible isn’t supernaturally guided. As I said above, not believing the dictates of the particular religion you belong to, makes you a hypocrite. It’s also quite arrogant. Yeah, those laws (that you believe) the creator of the universe proscribed, you can ignore whatever ones you like.
If 98% of the women in the Catholic church quit coming (and donating) they would change their opinion. Remember, nothing the Catholic church says is actually the inviolate word of God. They are making stuff up. They aren’t going to throw away 50% of their revenue stream for no reason. Someone has to pay for the gold hats that twat in the Vatican wears.
Yeah, I think I do.
Not from the evidence of your posts.