Could you summarize? I don't really want to watch 15 minutes of talking right now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Warning! Sensitive content! Proceed with caution!
- Thread starter IsmailaGodHasHeard
- Start date
Could you summarize? I don't really want to watch 15 minutes of talking right now.
Can you watch 5min and 40 sec? I have no problem with what this new philosopher has to say but you may. It would be interesting to see what it might be.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)
Glancing through, neither really do I. It seems rather that we sort of agree, except with words: religion isn't the failed science, but rather, literalistic interpretations of legends and myth is. The paragraph under "spirituality" seems to me to indicate that not only does he not have a problem with the core essence of religion, but that he rather embraces it.
IOW, he's not really anti-religion, but anti-religion-as-it-commonly-appears-now. :yes:
Sam Harris in his own words:
Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us unwilling to criticize ideas that are increasingly maladaptive and patently ridiculous. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves--repeatedly and at the highest level of discourse--about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality. Our competing religious certainties are impeding the emergence of a viable, global civilization. Religious faith--faith that there is a God who cares what name He is called, faith that Jesus is coming back to earth, faith that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise--is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas.
Remember the OP is about the Muslim Prophet Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was six years old and consummating the marriage when she was nine.
What is the link between my post, that quote, and Aisha? I'm not seeing it.
...nor do I believe a global civilization is viable, or even necessarily desirable.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, I won't abandon common sense to try to rationalize to myself that it's okay for adult men to stick their penises in nine year old girls. Color it however you want. Some debates don't have two reasonable sides.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
And plenty of knowledge and experience of nine year olds who have engaged in sexual activities with adult men. It never turns out well. This continued defense of sexual abuse of nine year olds is fascinating though, so please continue.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But how do you know she didn't genuinely love and lust for a middle aged man between playing with dollies?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You're right. I'm being completely irrational. How could I have been so blind?
Shouldnt we all have our own ick factor when the reproductive organ of a presumably fully developed male enters a nine year old girl?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm actually still waiting for any evidence which supports this ridiculous notion that it was ever normal for adult men to marry and have sex with nine year olds.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Regardless of a cultural norm, there are plenty of clues that young children aren't capable of consensual sex with an adult.
I don't think that's the issue. It's about whether the culture supports forcing children into those situations, and whether we can accurately assess (and condemn) cultural factors from our ethnocentric vantage point.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, we can condemn sexual abuse of children, regardless of the time or culture. I mean, assuming we're empathetic, civilized people.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Or how the physical, mental and emotional damage was lessened or negated by the fact that it was socially acceptable. I'm still confused as to how that works.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
I agree.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your confusion stems from your lack of motivation to rationalize sex with children. You see, you have to want it to be acceptable in order to understand how it could be acceptable. It's all very nuanced and complex, and if you weren't so hung up on seeing adult men banging nine year olds as wrong, then you might be able to grasp it.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I doubt that people would be trying to downplay it to the degree that they do if it didn't involve a revered religious figure.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your doubts are well founded. When it's the guy down the street, people call for a lynching.
Last edited:
Your experience only encompasses modern nine-year-old girls in modern settings; therefore, they cannot apply to nine-year-old girls 1400 years ago.
Besides, what is this experience you speak of?
Last edited:
It is icky. But the ick factor alone isn't enough to judge; we must use logic and reason, as well. Logically, the number of birthdays we've celebrated is, ultimately, meaningless to nature.
Last edited: