This is now the second time I am pointing out that I do not believe all Muslims believe as you do, because I engage with several Muslims on a daily basis, and I think they would be utterly appalled by the attitudes you've expressed here. Write that down so you don't accuse me again, please.
To be honest, it is difficult for me not to judge all Muslim men as abusive male chauvinist pigs after reading muhammed_isa's posts in this thread and after helping a former Muslim battered woman leave her abusive husband. She was abused by her husband before she converted to Christianity, but her situation became even more dire after she converted. She was beaten within an inch of her life by her husband and other male members of his family. I helped to take care of her at a shelter for battered women, and I went to court with her for emotional support. While participating in this thread, I've also been reminded of the news I've read about Islamic countries like Afghanistan, where women are gravely mistreated and legally oppressed. I feel empathy for these women. As I said earlier in this thread, I remembered the following news while I was reading what I regard as appalling posts by muhammad_isa.
Considering how the Bible depicts God as all-powerful and all-knowing, I would say that he is the most evil and vile of the two. Assuming that God exists, and if he is indeed all-knowing, then he foreknew that Lucifer would rebel, or perhaps even created Lucifer to rebel, so that he could stroke his own ego by defeating an "evil" nemesis and show how he is the Big Kahuna in heaven. Of course, Lucifer, being created, would not be as powerful and all-knowing as his creator. It seems obvious to me that the poor devil was created solely to serve as God's plaything and a pawn for God to use to stroke his own ego.
If God and Lucifer exist, then Lucifer, like humans, was merely a toy for God to manipulate and control so that he could depict himself as an all-powerful creator with no rivals. I think that we should feel sorry for the poor devil, assuming that he even exists, because he certainly got the raw end of the deal.
It is a contradiction.
If a couple "live in sin", they are committing illegal sexual intercourse.
If they are married, they cannot be accused of an illegal sexual act.
I should point out that I'm addressing law in the
modern west. So let's set aside the fact that sex
outside of marriage here is legal....
Rape is sexual contact that is also assault.
The sex itself isn't illegal per se. But the
combination becomes so.
Consider an analogy....
If I carry a gun into a bank this is not a crime.
But if I rob the bank while carrying a gun,
then the carrying becomes part of the crime,
& is a separate charge, over & above the robbery.
(Fortunately, banks give me money willingly.)
History does not make later crime become legal.
Moreover, a spouse may change how one feels
towards the other. None have the right to force
sex upon their spouse or anyone else.
This is just how our law works. And society pretty
much agrees with it. However, I know that some
societies & other religions feel otherwise, eg,
allowing husbands to assault wives & children.
I disapprove of them.
And I'm sure they disapprove of us.
So it goes.
Considering how the Bible depicts God as all-powerful and all-knowing, I would say that he is the most evil and vile of the two. Assuming that God exists, and if he is indeed all-knowing, then he foreknew that Lucifer would rebel, or perhaps even created Lucifer to rebel, so that he could stroke his own ego by defeating an "evil" nemesis and show how he is the Big Kahuna in heaven. Of course, Lucifer, being created, would not be as powerful and all-knowing as his creator. It seems obvious to me that the poor devil was created solely to serve as God's plaything and a pawn for God to use to stroke his own ego.
If God and Lucifer exist, then Lucifer, like humans, was merely a toy for God to manipulate and control so that he could depict himself as an all-powerful creator with no rivals. I think that we should feel sorry for the poor devil, assuming that he even exists, because he certainly got the raw end of the deal.
So much for the prevalent belief among Abrahamic theists (especially Christians) that their God is loving, merciful, and just, as well as a heavenly father.
So much for the prevalent belief among Abrahamic theists (especially Christians) that their God is loving, merciful, and just, as well as a heavenly father.
This ^^^ is a line i use. The reply is usually along the lines of "it's justified because it's god"
You really cannot discuss the facts with an attitude like that
Again, we know that.
..and there really isn't much choice in a society without obligatory marriage.
How else does one determine what sexual act is legal, and which isn't?
Again, we know that.
..and there really isn't much choice in a society without obligatory marriage.
How else does one determine what sexual act is legal, and which isn't?
Jesus as depicted in the New Testament committed several moral errors. You wouldn't agree, because you are a believer, and such thinking isn't permitted.
The believer simply will not let his mind wander into a place that he believes is blasphemous to an intolerant and harshly judgmental god that can read his mind.
Here's a list of bad ideas from Jesus that I've compiled. I'm sure that you can come up with reasons why these are all great ideas, but I don't expect them to be more than unconvincing rationalization:
[1] Matt 5:28-32 - Jesus says marriage to a divorcee is adultery; and a man who ogles a woman has already committed adultery; and that you must cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if it offends.
(Matthew 5:32) However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The context here shows that Jesus is referring to a woman who gets an unscriptural divorce. That is, the marriage "ends", but not on the grounds of sexual immorality.
This is an unscriptural divorce.
In the eyes of secular authorities, the man and woman are no longer one - married.
In the eyes of God, they are still married. The marriage has not ended account to God's law.
Hence the party would be adulterers if they married another.
Jesus made this clear, in Matthew 19:9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
The apostle Paul also explain the other way a marriage legally ends.
(Romans 7:2, 3) 2 For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So, then, while her husband is living, she would be called an adulteress if she became another man’s. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s.
Thus, under the law of God, which says... In fact, why not let God's son explain. Matthew 19 3 And Pharisees came to him intent on testing him, and they asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of grounds?” 4 In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
There are only two grounds for breaking the marriage bond - sexually immortal (if a mate chooses to), and death.
There is no moral error here.
The marriage was to be a life long bond - a commitment of faithfulness to one's partner, which allowed for
1) not dismissing one's mate, just because of "losing interest", "losing feelings for"... which is treacherous.
(Malachi 2:14-16) 14 And you say, ‘For what reason?’ It is because Jehovah has acted as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously, although she is your partner and your wife by covenant. 15 But there was one who did not do it, for he had what remained of the spirit. And what was that one seeking? The offspring of God. So guard yourselves respecting your spirit, and do not deal treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 For I hate divorce,” says Jehovah the God of Israel, “and the one who covers his garment with violence,” says Jehovah of armies. “And guard yourselves respecting your spirit, and you must not deal treacherously.
2) making the effort to love and cherish one's mate, even when disagreements or other differences arise - Commitment.
3) growing in love for as long as they lived. Life long union.
This is moral excellence, since it has the family's best interest, and strong families make strong communities.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain why.
This is the weakness in your position. Your judgment is poor and immoral.
Even most Muslims don;t seem to follow your obsolete and immoral interpretation. Secular law in the UK trumps your religious rules, and your God can't do anything about it. And if you raped your wife in the UK and she had evidence, you would be arrested and prosecuted, because that is the law, and the law will ignore your opinion of how things should be according to your interpretation of the Quran. So secular law portects the wives of Muslims like you.
You are the only member who doesn't believe that rape of a wife is mistreatment. Or that a wife can be raped at all since the wife has suspended all rights to body autonomy. That is clear in the posts that reveal your poor judgment about human rights for women.
Your interpretation of Islamic law threatens women and their well-being. Secular law intends to protect the basic rights of all individuals. Your interpretation of Islamic law is illegal in secular nations.
This is the weakness in your position. Your judgment is poor and immoral.
Even most Muslims don;t seem to follow your obsolete and immoral interpretation. Secular law in the UK trumps your religious rules, and your God can't do anything about it. And if you raped your wife in the UK and she had evidence, you would be arrested and prosecuted, because that is the law, and the law will ignore your opinion of how things should be according to your interpretation of the Quran. So secular law portects the wives of Muslims like you.
Your interpretation of Islamic law threatens women and their well-being. Secular law intends to protect the basic rights of all individuals. Your interpretation of Islamic law is illegal in secular nations.
That is what you perceive.
I see that in countries that have Islamic law, men and women are generally happily married and bring up their children well.
I see in the West, that marriages fail regularly, and the single parent family is becoming the norm.
Children grow up with more more social problems in one parent families.
