and once again - you ignore the actual answers I give to your questions . . .
I can tell from your response that you didn’t read the article. Nice try Push 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Here’s a nice summary of the entire picture, so you can stop judging Islamic religion as anything different than your christian religion, and understand that it is a tool of society at any point in time.
Oleeme, you take off on a lot of rabbit trails, sugar. Leave this Islam - Christianity comparison thing alone or you are going to look awfully silly. This is truly the most ineffective weapon in your arsenal.
[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.[/quote]
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
You do have selective reading! I didn’t say that Muslims do not abuse their women, I said that their religion says the same things about women being of elevated worth as the christian religion. My point was that the way the society interprets the religion is what matters, and that all of the values of the religion are similar to christianity. Infact, the society holds men even more responsible for what their female relatives do than ours. The women are considered property, and that’s why they aren’t held responsible. Part of the reason the women are abused is because the state doesn’t deal with them- it deals with the men and lets the men deal with them.
Here’s a nice summary of the entire picture, so you can stop judging Islamic religion as anything different than your christian religion, and understand that it is a tool of society at any point in time.
http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=411
Here’s a nice summary of the entire picture, so that you can stop judging Islamic teaching as being the same as Christian teaching and understand that there are substantive differences between Islam and Christianity.
http://www.investigateislam.com/sura_4.htm[/quote]
I’ve read every one of your links, but I can tell from that respnse that you didn’t even glance at mine. Give it a go through. I only posted one link, after all.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
[/quote]
Oh but I have done exactly what you asked - I rejected all belief systems and started over from the very beginning/basics (accepting NO presuppositions) to build my world-view and to come to the point where I can rationally accept my beliefs about God and Christianity (along with input from Buddhism, Taoism and a few other belief systems).
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%
[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
You do have selective reading! I didn’t say that Muslims do not abuse their women, I said that their religion says the same things about women being of elevated worth as the christian religion. My point was that the way the society interprets the religion is what matters, and that all of the values of the religion are similar to christianity. Infact, the society holds men even more responsible for what their female relatives do than ours. The women are considered property, and that’s why they aren’t held responsible. Part of the reason the women are abused is because the state doesn’t deal with them- it deals with the men and lets the men deal with them.
Here’s a nice summary of the entire picture, so you can stop judging Islamic religion as anything different than your christian religion, and understand that it is a tool of society at any point in time.
http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=411
Here’s a nice summary of the entire picture, so that you can stop judging Islamic teaching as being the same as Christian teaching and understand that there are substantive differences between Islam and Christianity.
http://www.investigateislam.com/sura_4.htm
I’ve read every one of your links, but I can tell from that respnse that you didn’t even glance at mine. Give it a go through. I only posted one link, after all.
[/quote]
Sunshine - I’ve already extensively studied Islam at the source and from its own scholars - you’re not going to prove anything new to me on this issue. In addition, my mother’s family is 100% Syrian - so my information comes straight from the “horse’s mouth”. I only posted the links to give you some easily accessible information. You’ve got a long way to go before you can discuss that religion with me on equal terms.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Actually, agnosticism would be an utter lack of faith in anything.
Like I said, it is inverted but it is a faith. An agnostic has a faith that his so-called lack of faith is “the ticket.”
Again, as I said earlier, an agnostic is a copout. A fence rider. A pussy.[/quote] So you are going along with some actual belief so as to help define yourself as “not an indecisive pussy”? when you admit that you really don’t know, and therefore don’t have 100% faith? Is this not a little like going along with the crowd in that you are avoiding your self-made negative conotation? [quote] I mean I can see some “I don’t know”-in going on for awhile in someone’s life but hey, sooner or later it’s time to get your thumb out of your ass, climb off the fence and stand for something. What do you think?[/quote] I think it’s good to be honest. If you don’t know, you don’t know. I have more respect for someone who can tell you to your face that they have no idea what’s going to happen when they die, and anything they think is their best guess.
[quote]Another reason I think agnosticism is all the rage is…well, it’s all the rage. It’s cool, in a bit of a twisted way, to appear sooooo intellectuuuuual that you get to say, “Duh, I don’t know…duh. I’m such an unbiased, tolerant, politically correct individual so I’m going to play it safe and say, ‘Duh, I don’t know.’” [/quote] Politically tolerant people wouldn’t disagree with you on your Christiantiy outright because that’s you’re belief, who are we tell you what to believe?
[quote]Just look at this or the creation thread as an example. Look at the Cowboys and the Maks, et al, who chime in to just to let everyone know they’re one of the “cool guys”. No contribution of substance, just want everyone to know that they are soooooophisticated enough not to be taken in with that silly creation and God stuff. It’s “beneath them.”
It would be incorrect logic to say that lack of faith=faith. Atheism is indeed a type of faith, although I think that most of the people who hold consider it a bet “Well, if I had to bet money on whether or not there was a god based on the evidence, I would go with no god.”
Christianity eliminates the “I would bet” part and simply says “I know”.
You basically just said “I don’t know, but don’t blame me for going with this because everyone has a type of faith.” Which, as I said above, isn’t true.
You still haven’t answered my question: how do you know that your religion is the right one?
Faith. Along with an awful lot of examination of the Book that God told us to study to find out more about Him. Maybe I’m wrong? We’ll see. Cuz one thing never changes…we all gotta die.[/quote]
That we will. Good luck all of us 
[/quote]
Okay, since you are going to nag me all day long about reading your articles, and then not even glance at the lonely one I posted, I’m going to copy and past a few sections for your convenience.
Islam as Roadblock and Resource. Within Islam, we also find texts and interpretations of texts that have been used by abusive men to justify their behavior. According to Muslim scholar and activist Sharifa Alkhateeb (1999):
The most abused verse is ayah 34 of Surah four: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah gave more to the one than the other, and because they support them from their means. So devout women are extremely careful and attentive in guarding what cannot be seen in that which Allah is extremely careful and attentive in guarding. Concerning women whose rebellious disloyalty (nusbooz) you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then hit them; but if they become obedient, do not seek means of annoyance against them. For Allah is Most High, Great” (pp. 54-55).
Alkhateeb (1999) argues that this passage instructs Muslim men to financially and physically protect women (given their greater physical strength) and instructs Muslim women to guard their fidelity in obedience to Allah. She points out that to translate the word “to hit” contradicts the explicit teachings of the Prophet:
Some translators assert that it is incorrect to translate the word “hit” at all, based on the Prophet’s lifelong abhorrence of hitting – found in the hadith collections of Abu Daud, Nasa’I, Ibn Hibban, and Bayhaqi, and in his instruction in his last sermon where he restricted striking to a light tap ( gbayr mubarrih - without causing pain) only if the wife has become guilty of nusbooz , obvious immoral conduct (p. 55).
Then Alkhateeb (1999) concludes:
The wording of this verse emphasizes the woman’s obedience to Allah’s desires, and not to those of another human being, but those who misinterpret this verse would assign men the duty of being eternal surveillance police over their wives. . . In short, this verse has been used as a tool of control and abuse completely opposed to the Islamic foundation of marriage and family (p. 55).
In contrast, Alkhateeb (1999) points out that in the Qur'an, the marital relationship specifically is mandated to be one of "mutual kindness and mercy (30:21; 9:71)" (p. 53). Muslim women keep their own names when they marry and have a right to a marriage contract in which they can specify their expectations of fair treatment.
No human being has ultimate authority over women. . . . Islam actually requires kindness, politeness, consideration, gentleness, respect and general goodness to women. . . . The current unjust practices to women represent ignorance of the religion rather than an example of the religion (Alkhateeb, 2003, pp. 7-8).
In other words, the resources are many to challenge the roadblocks.
Transforming Roadblocks into Resources. Early in the development of religious responses to sexual and domestic violence, Bussert (1986) clearly stated the agenda: “We need . . . to begin articulating a faith that will provide women with resources for strength rather than resources for endurance. We must articulate a theology of empowerment rather than a theology of passive endurance” (p. 65). This needed approach requires a critique (or deconstruction) of the roadblocks that have been created by patriarchal interpretations of religious teachings, and the development (or reconstruction) of useful resources that empower victims and survivors to address their experiences.
Although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all state as a core value the preservation of marriage and the family, an underlying purpose behind the application of texts and teachings on marriage and family often has been the preservation of male control of women and children within a patriarchal system. At times, this has come at the expense of women's safety. Thus we have seen centuries of "religion in service to patriarchy" rather than serving as a challenge to the dominant social norms which have perpetuated violence against women.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
.[/quote]
O - it is your statement that Islam and Christianity are similar in their teachings about women that I have a problem with - there are night and day differences in the teachings. So your link about the mistreatment of women within a framework of being “enabled” by religion is only honest in the terms of what Islam teaches - and not what Christianity teaches - even the authors on that link agree with that summation.
EDIT - i had already read the article - didn’t find it had any relevance to the discussion - Islamic teaching about the treatment of women is not honestly represented in that article as I have personally witnessed
And now I am going to disappear for a few days again. I have to live life. I know, what a crappy excuse to disentangle myself from this neverending passtime.
“. . . well . . . bye . . .”
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
O - it is your statement that Islam and Christianity are similar in their teachings about [/quote]
I have a friend who insists that some people are stuck at a level of reasoning where they are unable to objectively look at similarities and questions between religions and when addressing existential questions. I posted the link because it shows how two religions, which both attest to uphold women as very valuable, have also been used to justify abusing women. Here’s the Christian part. Even if you can’t see it, I’m sure other’s will note the similarity to the Islamic part:
Christianity as Roadblock and Resource. Both the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures contain story after story of violence against women: e.g. Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19), Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11), Vashti (Esther 1), Suzannah (Daniel 13), and probably the persistent widow in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 18) 2 . Later Christian texts also condone male violence against women and the domination of women.
For example, the right of chastisement was the enforcer of women’s subordination in marriage. In the “Rules of Marriage” compiled by Friar Cherubino in the 15 th century (Bussert, 1986) we find the careful instruction to a husband to first reprimand his wife; “And if this still doesn’t work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly . . . for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body” (p. 13).
Unfortunately, this doctrine has been viewed as consistent with scriptural passages interpreted to confirm male dominance over women: "Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (Ephesians 5.22-24 NRSV). Either by its silence or its instruction, the church has too often communicated to battered women that they should stay in abusive relationships, try to be better wives, and "forgive and forget."
To batterers, it has communicated that their efforts to control their wives or girlfriends are justified because women are to be subject to men in all things. They have been permitted to “discipline” their wives and their children all for the “good of the family.” Christian history is filled with examples of church leaders justifying abuse of women by men. Church fathers like Martin Luther unapologetically described their own physical violence towards their wives (Smith, 1911).
In dealing with domestic violence, however, the Christian scriptural justifications for women remaining in abusive relationships (subordination in marriage, e.g. Ephesians 5:20; prohibition of divorce, e.g. Malachi 2:13-16) must be considered in the fuller context of ethics, theology, and doctrine. Prooftexting (the selective use of a text, usually out of context, to support one's position) is a common ploy by those who seek to simply justify their actions. It is not difficult to prooftext a man's prerogative to dominate and control a woman within patriarchal western religious traditions. But it nonetheless does not represent the whole story.
For example, in Jesus' ministry, he teaches: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10, NRSV). Victimization is never God's will but rather fullness of life. Jesus understood his ministry "to proclaim release to the captives . . ." (Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61, NRSV). He told the story of the Good Samaritan to emphasize our responsibility to stop and care for the victim. These are fundamental teachings through which other passages must be interpreted in Christianity.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If you care to posit your question(s) again - I will fairly and honestly respond to them.
I’ll keep this extremely simple. (you can re-read my earlier posts if you like)
Try to believe 2+2=5.
Now try to believe Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross for your sins and he isn’t your personal savior.
If you could not believe in these with all your “will”, then you DONT have freedom of belief.
refute this.
Nothing to refute - I agree with you 100%[/quote]
the clamp down for the win.
By agreeing to this post, you have agreed to all my posts and what my main point has been:
- Free will is either non-existent or severely limited. 2. Unconscious self decides, Conscious self observes (The I).
which means:
An institution like religion is bunk
Unless:
The Christian God or Muslim God (or whoever) is behind our deterministic world.
which means:
The idea of heaven and hell is doubly absurd.
Do you really think your the cause of all your actions? Have you EVER did something that lacked a cause or a reason? Be truthful.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
O - it is your statement that Islam and Christianity are similar in their teachings about
I have a friend who insists that some people are stuck at a level of reasoning where they are unable to objectively look at similarities and questions between religions and when addressing existential questions. I posted the link because it shows how two religions, which both attest to uphold women as very valuable, have also been used to justify abusing women. Here’s the Christian part. Even if you can’t see it, I’m sure other’s will note the similarity to the Islamic part:
Christianity as Roadblock and Resource. Both the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures contain story after story of violence against women: e.g. Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19), Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11), Vashti (Esther 1), Suzannah (Daniel 13), and probably the persistent widow in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 18) 2 . Later Christian texts also condone male violence against women and the domination of women. For example, the right of chastisement was the enforcer of women’s subordination in marriage. In the “Rules of Marriage” compiled by Friar Cherubino in the 15 th century (Bussert, 1986) we find the careful instruction to a husband to first reprimand his wife; “And if this still doesn’t work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly . . . for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body” (p. 13).
Unfortunately, this doctrine has been viewed as consistent with scriptural passages interpreted to confirm male dominance over women: "Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (Ephesians 5.22-24 NRSV). Either by its silence or its instruction, the church has too often communicated to battered women that they should stay in abusive relationships, try to be better wives, and "forgive and forget." To batterers, it has communicated that their efforts to control their wives or girlfriends are justified because women are to be subject to men in all things. They have been permitted to "discipline" their wives and their children all for the "good of the family." Christian history is filled with examples of church leaders justifying abuse of women by men. Church fathers like Martin Luther unapologetically described their own physical violence towards their wives (Smith, 1911).
In dealing with domestic violence, however, the Christian scriptural justifications for women remaining in abusive relationships (subordination in marriage, e.g. Ephesians 5:20; prohibition of divorce, e.g. Malachi 2:13-16) must be considered in the fuller context of ethics, theology, and doctrine. Prooftexting (the selective use of a text, usually out of context, to support one's position) is a common ploy by those who seek to simply justify their actions. It is not difficult to prooftext a man's prerogative to dominate and control a woman within patriarchal western religious traditions. But it nonetheless does not represent the whole story.
For example, in Jesus' ministry, he teaches: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10, NRSV). Victimization is never God's will but rather fullness of life. Jesus understood his ministry "to proclaim release to the captives . . ." (Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61, NRSV). He told the story of the Good Samaritan to emphasize our responsibility to stop and care for the victim. These are fundamental teachings through which other passages must be interpreted in Christianity.
[/quote]
I agree that scripture that has been prooftexted within the Christian church frequently, and is never a valid excuse for victimization of anyone, but in fairness to full disclosure, if you’re going to quote scripture, could you post up Ephesians 5:25-29, I forget how it goes exactly. ;')
[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
WHY DONT YOU PROVE YOUR RELIGION. Why is it that not one of you Bible thumpers/islamic extremists/ANYBODY who views thier religion as the only way it can be with NO PROOF. Why dont you go over to Iraq or afghanistan and preach to those lost souls and let me know how that works out for you. Oh and by the way stop LOLing. What are you a 14 year old sending a text?
- YouTube CAN WE SAY BRAINWASHED?
- YouTube There is another one for ya, christianity at its finest right there.
How meny stories have you read about some coward strapping bombs to himself and blowing himself up in a crowd of innocent people because he thought his ‘way’ was the right way? Religion has killed millions more than it will ever, EVER save.
So now you can come back with your whole ‘your heart has been hardened by satin’ speech so I can, as you would say, LOL at you and respond with ‘no its people like you who hardened my heart’.
Atheists still have the highest body count by a loooong shot. Muslim extremists are amateurs
by comparison.
How so? Who have Atheists killed in the name of…no god?
[/quote]
Millions, we’ve been over this a thousand times. Atheists killed millions to promote atheism. It’s in your history book. Don’t take my word for it.
[quote]debraD wrote:
^^ I dunno, sometimes I think the extremists are the least frightening and most logical of the bunch. I mean, I don’t really understand how so many people can claim to believe abortion is the murder of an innocent baby and NOT start bombing clinics. At least they are true to their stated belief.
I hate to think if I knew there was a clinic down the street where I knew they were ‘puttng down’ innocent people against their knowledge or will that I would just have a wee protest about it, ya know, that that would indeed be the sensible, reasonable approach.[/quote]
So pro-life people piss you off because they are not violent enough? That’s an interesting take. What does that have to do with the topic at hand? There is an abortion thread you can jump on if you want to discuss that topic.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
More examples of men’s clear, god-given domination of women according to the bible:
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” (Gen. 3:16).
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. (1 Coritinthians 11:8-9)
Gen. 2:24, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” When a man and woman get married, they become on flesh. There is a unity between them. But, it is the man who is the head of the family which is why it says that the man is the head of the woman.
Irishsteel- you have a good heart and mind, but I think you also have a case of only seeing what you want to see.[/quote]
You are just doing scripture mining and selective reading. Irish is right, there are many places in the bible that women are held in high esteem.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
…For example, I find agnosticism to be a supremely unconvincing posture. And I think atheism is fundamentally incoherent and/or impossible.
Makes sense to me.
Agnosticism is seen by its proponents as the “religion” of the secular intellectual; the deep thinker; the ponderer; the careful, “tolerant” man. In reality it is one or both of the following:
- a pussy for bailing out; incapable of making a tough decision so no decision is made. A poltroon.
Both atheists and agnostics possess:
- a display of arrogance (look at this thread for evidence) against the Creator. This, in effect, opens the door toward establishing Man as god. If God can be dismissed through whatever mechanism one cares to choose then Man can fill the vacuum. Man ascends and becomes greater than God or in essence, god (see Isaiah footnote below). God becomes irrelevant or non-existent or distant (deism).
A. Mechanisms?
A1. Evolutionism.
A2. The Bible is inaccurate. Choose your reason.
A3. The Bible is inconsistent. “”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”"
A4. God doesn’t meet my/His own standards. See Oleeme’s posts in this thread.
A5. Assurance that God is a fairy tale, myth, mysticism, crutch, etc.
A5. Bitterness toward God for something He has or hasn’t done for them and/or others.
A6. God fails to supernaturally sew limbs back on amputees. [Rolls eyes]
- Check out the fall of Lucifer/Satan in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
[/quote]
That about sums up the athiests arguments.