Prophets--quality control. Especially for Muslims, LDS

[bowingtoGod]

I gather that you don't think that Muhammed was a pedophile, you think having many wives is fine, and you have no problem with sexual inequality?

who me?
Well with the marriage to Aisha (ra) that was an acceptable part of their society. Not only that, but she was already engaged to someone else (or at least proposed) but they declined. So her parents and her agreed to marry the Prophet (peace be upon him). I know that it was the parents decision even though the child had a say (how does a child understand marriage?) but this is a special case as the Prophet (pbuh) was allowed some more rights. Generally, you won't find many Muslims marrying 9 year old girls
I do believe in polygamy with certain restrictions. Only in cases where there are few men for woman and in war is it recommended. Otherwise it is not a good thing to have. And even then, only if you can treat the wives equally and are able to support them all, and your children, on your own (woman are not obligated to put in money for the family)
What are you referring to by sexual inequality?
Hope I helped
salaam

 

[nameless]

Well with the marriage to Aisha (ra) that was an acceptable part of their society.

so muhammad would do anything that is acceptable to the society? he dont have his own views on these?

Not only that, but she was already engaged to someone else (or at least proposed) but they declined.

might be because they somehow came to know about aisha's age...

I know that it was the parents decision even though the child had a say (how does a child understand marriage?)

aisha was too young to make decision on marriage, should not that be considered?

but this is a special case as the Prophet (pbuh) was allowed some more rights.

special rights? if you dont mind pls explain ...

 

[bowingtoGod]

so muhammad would do anything that is acceptable to the society? he dont have his own views on these?


might be because they somehow came to know about aisha's age...


aisha was too young to make decision on marriage, should not that be considered?


special rights? if you dont mind pls explain ...

Salaam
What I meant by the first thing was that it was a different time. We progress as we go further through time. What was okay then, may not be now. And vice versa.
hahaha! Hmmm I don't remember why but no it wasn't her age
That was one of my points. She (ra) was too young. But it turned out well Masha'Allah. She and the Prophet (saws) loved each other dearly. She had no problems because of it.
Muhammad (saws) had certain rights that others did not. He was allowed more than four wives, whatever he said was law, and just stuff like that. Now don't go thinking that he was getting wives just because he was lusting (astaghfirullah). He did it to unite the tribes.
Hope I helped
Salaam (peace)

 

[nameless]

Salaam
What I meant by the first thing was that it was a different time. We progress as we go further through time. What was okay then, may not be now. And vice versa.

i agree, but it is due to the circumstances, circumstances are not always the same. I would like to know what were those circumstances at those periods that justified muhammad-aisha marriage?

Salaam
That was one of my points. She (ra) was too young. But it turned out well Masha'Allah. She and the Prophet (saws) loved each other dearly. She had no problems because of it.

again, she was not matuared enough to make decision about her life, would not it be wiser if muhammad waited for few more years?

Salaam
Muhammad (saws) had certain rights that others did not. He was allowed more than four wives, whatever he said was law, and just stuff like that

for every law there should be some justifications, it cannot be a law just because muhammad said so.....

Salaam
Now don't go thinking that he was getting wives just because he was lusting (astaghfirullah). He did it to unite the tribes.

i dont think so, muhammad married a king's daughter to rescue the king from his own companions, this appears as muhammad's companions had no respect for him...

 

[Autodidact]

who me?
Well with the marriage to Aisha (ra) that was an acceptable part of their society.

Now this is very weird to me. I thought the whole point of a prophet is to tell societies that stuff they find acceptable is not acceptable to God, and they should cut it out. You're saying you converted to Islam because you admired this great, spiritual, etc. man, who in fact was a pedophile. In my book that's one of the worst things you can be. He married a little girl. That's just so immoral. And then you excuse it on the basis that it was acceptable to that society? That makes no sense to me. None at all. This guy is supposed to be the model man, right? A pedophile is not a model man; he's a criminal, a sick, selfish, exploitative person without compassion for the weak and vulnerable.

Generally, you won't find many Muslims marrying 9 year old girls

Actually you will find hundreds of Muslims marrying 9 year old girls in Yemen every year, with their parents giving them into marriage to old men they've never met, and take a wild guess who they use as a model for this reprehensible behavior? Yemenite girls die in childbirth every year because they are too young to give birth.

Honestly I don't get Islam at all. It's like you don't care about human suffering. Or maybe it's just girls you don't care about, I don't know.

What are you referring to by sexual inequality?

You're joking, right? Sexual inequality means men and women don't have equal rights. You know, like in Islam?

 

[Autodidact]

Salaam
What I meant by the first thing was that it was a different time. We progress as we go further through time. What was okay then, may not be now. And vice versa.
hahaha! Hmmm I don't remember why but no it wasn't her age
That was one of my points. She (ra) was too young. But it turned out well Masha'Allah. She and the Prophet (saws) loved each other dearly. She had no problems because of it.
Muhammad (saws) had certain rights that others did not. He was allowed more than four wives, whatever he said was law, and just stuff like that. Now don't go thinking that he was getting wives just because he was lusting (astaghfirullah). He did it to unite the tribes.
Hope I helped
Salaam (peace)

Oh no, don't go getting the wrong idea that he was a man or enjoyed having sex or anything. Don't go thinking he wanted to marry Aisha so he could actually have sex with her--that's just appearance. Don't let that deceive you. Actually he preferred celibacy, and married all those women just to help them out. It only looked like he was a lustful pedophile who sought to have as many wives as he could. He hated every minute of it! Just like today's Muslim men who collect wives and keep them prisoner so no other man can lay eyes on them. It has nothing to do with his desires; he's just trying to help society.

 

[Luminous]

anti-agnostic ideas are demonic conceptions from Mara.

 

[bowingtoGod]

i agree, but it is due to the circumstances, circumstances are not always the same. I would like to know what were those circumstances at those periods that justified muhammad-aisha marriage?



again, she was not matuared enough to make decision about her life, would not it be wiser if muhammad waited for few more years?


for every law there should be some justifications, it cannot be a law just because muhammad said so.....



i dont think so, muhammad married a king's daughter to rescue the king from his own companions, this appears as muhammad's companions had no respect for him...

Well Aisha (ra) was already going through puberty, that is one. Another would be that while some things are law, other things are cultural. We know more (scientifically) than we did then. Muhammad (saws) assuming he was the Prophet of God, would of known when was the right time to marry her.
Justifications hmmm... well you could say that the justification is that he is God's messenger hahaha
Which wife are you talking about in the last one?
Thank you for your time
Salaam

 

[bowingtoGod]

Now this is very weird to me. I thought the whole point of a prophet is to tell societies that stuff they find acceptable is not acceptable to God, and they should cut it out. You're saying you converted to Islam because you admired this great, spiritual, etc. man, who in fact was a pedophile. In my book that's one of the worst things you can be. He married a little girl. That's just so immoral. And then you excuse it on the basis that it was acceptable to that society? That makes no sense to me. None at all. This guy is supposed to be the model man, right? A pedophile is not a model man; he's a criminal, a sick, selfish, exploitative person without compassion for the weak and vulnerable. Actually you will find hundreds of Muslims marrying 9 year old girls in Yemen every year, with their parents giving them into marriage to old men they've never met, and take a wild guess who they use as a model for this reprehensible behavior? Yemenite girls die in childbirth every year because they are too young to give birth.

Honestly I don't get Islam at all. It's like you don't care about human suffering. Or maybe it's just girls you don't care about, I don't know.
I do believe in polygamy with certain restrictions. Only in cases where there are few men for woman and in war is it recommended. Otherwise it is not a good thing to have. And even then, only if you can treat the wives equally and are able to support them all, and your children, on your own (woman are not obligated to put in money for the family)
What are you referring to by sexual inequality?

You're joking, right? Sexual inequality means men and women don't have equal rights. You know, like in Islam?[/QUOTE]

A pedophile? He wasn't a pedophile. He showed none of the mental characteristics of being one.
About human suffering? What would make you think that?
And what rights are you speaking of?
And if you are continuing to being rude, I will just not answer as I fear I may get angry.
Salaam

 

[bowingtoGod]

Oh no, don't go getting the wrong idea that he was a man or enjoyed having sex or anything. Don't go thinking he wanted to marry Aisha so he could actually have sex with her--that's just appearance. Don't let that deceive you. Actually he preferred celibacy, and married all those women just to help them out. It only looked like he was a lustful pedophile who sought to have as many wives as he could. He hated every minute of it! Just like today's Muslim men who collect wives and keep them prisoner so no other man can lay eyes on them. It has nothing to do with his desires; he's just trying to help society.

If you study the life of him you will find that his marriages were to get the tribes united. I think only one or two were out of love. He married Aisha (ra) to get closer to Abu Bakr (ra)
And he did help them out. At several points he offered them the option of divorcing him and every time they rejected it.
And the Muslims that do that are bad and will face the judgement of Allah (swt)

 

[Autodidact]

Well Aisha (ra) was already going through puberty, that is one. Another would be that while some things are law, other things are cultural. We know more (scientifically) than we did then. Muhammad (saws) assuming he was the Prophet of God, would of known when was the right time to marry her.
Justifications hmmm... well you could say that the justification is that he is God's messenger hahaha
Which wife are you talking about in the last one?
Thank you for your time
Salaam

Wow, circular reasoning at its best. We know Muhammed was the prophet because of his good character. And although his character may appear criminal, predatory and evil, we know it wasn't, because he was the prophet.

 

[bowingtoGod]

Wow, circular reasoning at its best. We know Muhammed was the prophet because of his good character. And although his character may appear criminal, predatory and evil, we know it wasn't, because he was the prophet.

We know he was a Prophet because of his miracles and revelation. He did have good character and wasn't a criminal. After this I shall no longer answer you anymore
Salaam

 

[Autodidact]

You're joking, right? Sexual inequality means men and women don't have equal rights. You know, like in Islam?

A pedophile? He wasn't a pedophile. He showed none of the mental characteristics of being one.

He married a little girl. That's the definition of a pedophile.

About human suffering? What would make you think that?

Because when a little girl is married off to an adult man and forced to have sex and bear children, they suffer.

And what rights are you speaking of?

How about the right to inherit property, for starters.

And if you are continuing to being rude, I will just not answer as I fear I may get angry.
Salaam

Strong opinion does not equal rude. Please explain where I was rude in any way.

Personally, I think child sexual abuse is rude, but you seem to think it's fine, and makes such a good role model that you converted to a religion based on the good character of someone who practices it.

 

[Autodidact]

We know he was a Prophet because of his miracles and revelation. He did have good character and wasn't a criminal. After this I shall no longer answer you anymore
Salaam

Pedophilia is a crime. Marrying a little girl is not good character. We have a name for it. We call it pedophilia.

I can't understand how you would take as your model human being a man who would do such a reprehensible thing.

Is that your idea of good character?

 

[Luminous]

?


And if you are continuing to being rude, I will just not answer as I fear I may get angry.
Salaam

anger and shame are common characteristics of those who follow the path of Mara. anger and shame can only come from the self...shame is a pityful excuse for anger, and anger is a pityful excuse for violence. shame is also a horrible excuse for ignorance.

 

[tomato1236]

He married a little girl. That's the definition of a pedophile.
Because when a little girl is married off to an adult man and forced to have sex and bear children, they suffer.
How about the right to inherit property, for starters.
Strong opinion does not equal rude. Please explain where I was rude in any way.

Personally, I think child sexual abuse is rude, but you seem to think it's fine, and makes such a good role model that you converted to a religion based on the good character of someone who practices it.

This is pretty negative.

 

[Katzpur]

If he provides himself as an example of what he teaches.

Zadok

I have never felt that the prophet has to prove himself.

For those who don't know how the LDS prophet is chosen...

The Church is led by a quorum of twelve Apostles, each of whom can trace his authority to preside back to the ultimate Head of the Church – Jesus Christ. When an Apostle dies, the prophet, his two counselors, and the remaining eleven Apostles gather together in the temple, discuss the matter, pray and decide upon a new individual to take the place of the deceased member of the Quorum. Throughout the years, each Apostle ultimately either moves forward in seniority or dies first. When the Prophet dies, the keys of authority the same ones once held by Peter are passed first to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles collectively and then, once they have received spiritual confirmation that this is God’s will, to the senior member of the Quorum. He then becomes the new Prophet. God has already given His seal of approval to His new spokesperson. He essentially did that back when the Prophet was first called to the Apostleship.

For those of us who believe that God has chosen and prepared the individual who stands at the head of His Church, we do not feel it necessary for that man to have to prove himself to us. At this point in the Church's history, the prophet functions primarily to make sure that the Church continues to function as it is supposed to function, that the doctrines it teaches remain pure, etc. I think most people who hear that we are led by a prophet assume that this man's main role is to prophesy future events. If God were to want to use someone in that capacity, it would undoubtedly be the prophet, that certainly isn't his primary function.

 

[Sententia]

Particularly for Muslims, LDS, Unification Church, or anyone else who accepts a specific person as a prophet of God.

When a man claims to be a prophet of God, what criteria do you use to determine whether he's telling the truth?

Honestly... I consider a prophet of god in the same light I consider a prophet of the bee from a honey nut cheerios box. The difference being having tried honey cheerios I find it delicious.

 

[Sententia]

I have never felt that the prophet has to prove himself.

For those who don't know how the LDS prophet is chosen...

The Church is led by a quorum of twelve Apostles, each of whom can trace his authority to preside back to the ultimate Head of the Church – Jesus Christ. When an Apostle dies, the prophet, his two counselors, and the remaining eleven Apostles gather together in the temple, discuss the matter, pray and decide upon a new individual to take the place of the deceased member of the Quorum. Throughout the years, each Apostle ultimately either moves forward in seniority or dies first. When the Prophet dies, the keys of authority the same ones once held by Peter are passed first to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles collectively and then, once they have received spiritual confirmation that this is God’s will, to the senior member of the Quorum. He then becomes the new Prophet. God has already given His seal of approval to His new spokesperson. He essentially did that back when the Prophet was first called to the Apostleship.

For those of us who believe that God has chosen and prepared the individual who stands at the head of His Church, we do not feel it necessary for that man to have to prove himself to us. At this point in the Church's history, the prophet functions primarily to make sure that the Church continues to function as it is supposed to function, that the doctrines it teaches remain pure, etc. I think most people who hear that we are led by a prophet assume that this man's main role is to prophesy future events. If God were to want to use someone in that capacity, it would undoubtedly be the prophet, that certainly isn't his primary function.

Wow... Katz. What up? Haven't seen you in a while. Good times. Going to read your post now. One sec.

Ok sure. I guess. To each their own. I am not sure why if you think god wanted to use someone in some way he would undoubtly use a mormon self proclaimed prophet... I just think its kinda mormon biased but I could see islamic people saying yeah if god needed someone they would totally work through islamic people... (And you could say that about any religion although I feel christian scientists and crazy, and I mean crazy phelps leaping to mind)

Christ is predated by many other gods. Look at Hinduism for instance. People were heart and soul dedicated their lives and died as a Hindu before Christ even came around.

I like when christians says these new atheists as christians are actually the new theists... Christ is new... Mormons are like the really new christians despite most christians get upset at the notion that people could become gods themselves. (I find catholics in particular get really upset with the whole pre-life... Chillin up in heaven and planning out your life... agreeing to suffer through it and them coming down and dying of starvation at 8 getting the free pass up to ultimate heaven... woot!)

I dunno... I feel many of the arguments against a personal god are not addressed at all by mormonism and every faith claims to be the faith and we are supposed to look at the most adherents or the fastest growing as proof of being the true faith?

Seems odd. One only has to consider the history of nearly any faith to see it to be untrue. Blacks are evil and cant be priests... wait... no they can.

Women can only inherit through their husbands and not directly. Why? Meh... God is male I guess.

And if god had a sex then he wouldn't be.

Wait... This thread is about prophets and why am I even posting? Religions pretend to be Prophet agencies that are not for profit while atheist organizations say we would love to make a profit despite having no prophets.

Atheism is a no prophet belief system. I actually talked to a mormon who believed god(s) are not actually all knowing as that goes against free will. He believed that god is all knowing in the sense that he knows everything there is to know but can not know the future. (Although he might be very good at guessing) And yes I said he? And he said sure, god is a guy.

Really?

 

[Katzpur]

Wow... Katz. What up? Haven't seen you in a while.

Yeah, I haven't posted for about four months.

Ok sure. I guess. To each their own. I am not sure why if you think god wanted to use someone in some way he would undoubtly use a mormon self proclaimed prophet... I just think its kinda mormon biased but I could see islamic people saying yeah if god needed someone they would totally work through islamic people... (And you could say that about any religion although I feel christian scientists and crazy, and I mean crazy phelps leaping to mind)

Well, let me qualify my statement. What I was trying to say is that God chooses who He's going to use as a spokesperson. I don't believe that a person can be considered to be a prophet just because he claims to be one. My point was that the Latter-day Saints accept their prophet as God's spokesman, not because he predicted x-number of future events correctly, but because we trust the process by which a prophet is chosen. I would expect that if God wanted to inform "His Church" of something, it would be through "His Prophet." I believe there is only one such church and one such individual on earth. That would not, of course, preclude God from communicating with anyone He might choose to communicate with. Here, for example, is a statement by one former LDS leader (now deceased):

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

I dunno... I feel many of the arguments against a personal god are not addressed at all by mormonism...

Such as?

and every faith claims to be the faith and we are supposed to look at the most adherents or the fastest growing as proof of being the true faith?

Uh... numbers have nothing to do with truth.

Blacks are evil and cant be priests... wait... no they can.

Blacks have never been said to be "evil." No, they couldn't hold the priesthood for a time. Yes, they can now. Is that supposed to prove something?

Women can only inherit through their husbands and not directly. Why? Meh... God is male I guess.

If you're talking about inheriting the greatest heavenly blessings, it works both ways. Neither men nor women can do so without the other.

I actually talked to a mormon who believed god(s) are not actually all knowing as that goes against free will. He believed that god is all knowing in the sense that he knows everything there is to know but can not know the future.

In essence, I would have to agree with that.

And yes I said he? And he said sure, god is a guy.

Why do you think Jesus called Him "Father"?