I think the people at the top of each religion have texts that prove religion its a lie. Obviously I cant prove it but I think the pope and his equivalent heads of religion know the truth.
How are they going to reject someone that they're in direct communication with? That'd be like me rejecting the belief that you exist. Totally irrelevant to my point. The point isn't that he chose some people to become prophets, but that he's given some people a clear advantage as to whether they believe in him or not, which is one of the requirements to get into heaven. That's not just and I don't know how you can claim that it is. According to your religion, we are all judged before our final fate is decided. The parallels between a court case and this judgement are pretty obvious. You would expect both to be fair. And what would those reasons be? Are they incomprehensible to us, by any chance? If Allah is omniscient, then he'd already know whether humans could expand on his message, so what was the point? 1) They were unable to understand that it was wrong, as they didn't have that knowledge yet, having not eaten the fruit. 2) Allah told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit, in the original version. This clearly wasn't true. I think that it's you who isn't getting it, SNIAW. If god chooses who we are and created everything in the world, then he clearly does control what we do, regardless of any claims to the contrary. How do you make a decision? Think about it. If Allah is omnipotent, then he clearly does allow rape to happen. Is he incapable of stopping it, in your opinion? Quran 4:24 would actually appear to condone it. Despite the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I don't think that at all?
Despite my own opinions on religion I don't think that condone's rape, unless it's a bad translation?
How so? I would say captives is a strong word (a lot is lost in translation), but probably means a wife? Bit of polygamy going on there but nothing about rape. The use of mutual agreement in the same passage would suggest rape is not condoned?
I suppose thats the issue with the Quran being so vague, its open to different interpretation from people.
I would take their opinion with a pinch of salt, thats a far right website and if you go to the homepage its littered with anti-islamic rhetoric. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ The argument at the bottom of the page before the Quotes from the Quran and their dissection of them is basically that Western slave traders/owners were kinder than Islamic slave traders/owners.
I'm not going to argue with any other points because, quite frankly, I can't take religion seriously but to suggest a husband can't force his wife to have sex is probably one of the most naive things I think I've ever read on here.
I think that's something of an understatement. Also, it's a bit rich you being on your high horse when your username is basically calling someone a ****er. Where does that fit in with your religion?
They could've chosen not to spread the message of Allah, but they still have a massive step up from the rest of us who have no proof that he even exists. It's not a level playing field, so it's clearly unjust. That's not an answer. Saying that Allah knows and that he chooses not to tell us doesn't explain why he's taken clearly unjust action. And non-theists are damned for not believing in something that hasn't been proven. Why would a just god condemn somebody for looking at the evidence and going with the side that has more or even some? People generally get sent to jail after court cases, but I probably should've clarified. No, but expecting people to believe in something when all of the available evidence doesn't suggest that it's true is both ridiculous and pointless. If he wanted people to worship him, which I don't see the point of either, then making his existence obvious would've increased the chances of that happening. If he's omniscient (ie, knows and sees everything), then he'd know which choices we were going to make, so why not skip this life and move to the next one? Claiming something doesn't make it true. I'm sure that you're also aware that the suggestion to be drawn from what you're saying is that you'd be doing a new born child a favour by killing them, aren't you? If they would automatically go to paradise, then why allow for the possibility that they could end up in hell by letting them live? And not understanding the difference between right and wrong, how were they supposed to make the right decision? Also, why did god leave them in the company of Satan, next to a tree that could damn humanity for all time? Not a great piece of decision making from a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being, really. Because he doesn't exist, perhaps? Why is it preposterous? Does the Quran actually discuss rape at any point? I hate this argument. How are the morals of an eternal and timeless being influenced by the passage of time? Having sex with slaves should've been wrong then, just as keeping slaves should've been wrong in the first place! Please feel free to explain to me why keeping and raping slaves is actually moral, though.
Yeah, I'm sure you don't. Seeing a bright light isn't proof of god, either. Yet we're supposedly going to be judged for eternity base upon the decisions that we make with the information that we do have. How can that possibly be fair? Why would I believe? I have absolutely no reason to. Old texts that appear to contain contradictions and inconsistencies and that weren't even compiled until after the death of the prophet that they claim to represent simply aren't convincing evidence. Allah is more powerful than Shai'taan. If he doesn't want people to be influenced by him, then he could just stop him outright. Allowing people to be deceived and then judging them for it is ludicrous. I don't look at things simplistically at all. I look at them logically. If they don't make sense, then they're probably not true. And if he's omniscient then he already knows what we're going to do, so why not skip it? So what? Anything that they learn and do can only condemn their eternal soul, so why take that chance? I'm sure that any paradise would allow for personal growth and development. So he chooses to hide from us and allow people to condemn themselves to hell by not finding him? That's totally illogical. 1) They didn't know right from wrong. They didn't understand the concept of what they were doing. You also disprove this yourself, by choosing to go against your own beliefs. 2) Yet he would've known the outcome already. Prove it. People follow religions that say a lot of things are fine that clearly aren't. Slavery is condoned by the Bible, for instance. What does any of that have to do with the moral guidance of an eternal and timeless being? If something is wrong now, then it would've been wrong then, in the eyes of such a creature Historical context is irrelevant. You've clearly contradicted yourself within this statement. What's a concubine? (I do know, before anyone says anything!) A master clearly doesn't treat a slave as an equal. That's implicit in the relationship.
I won't go into detail on most of what you've said SNIAW, as you clearly don't apply critical thinking to your own religious beliefs, but I will mention one point. Muslim men had sex with concubines outside of marriage. Keeping a harem was allowed. Having compulsory sex with a slave is rape. It's unfortunate that you can't see the circularity of your logic when it comes to your faith. You seem like an intelligent, balanced and articulate individual when it comes to most things.
SNIAW Point 1 in your most recent post is quite frankly no proof at all. Seeing a really really bright light is not a justification of the existence of God or Angels. Sunlight being reflected of something metallic (a tactic King Solomon employed in battle to lure his enemies to charge into a deep ravine if it's to be believed) is a rational explanation for that. It has to be remembered - as I pointed out in a previous post - that peoples knowledge and experience then is nothing like we have today, so that they would attribute things beyond their comprehension and understanding to a Supreme being. Back then, those who could read and write would, more often than not, be found in religion so those who couldn't read or write would take what they were told at face value because they heard it from those they took to be more intelligent than them. These peasants needed to be told that there would be an afterlife that would be far better than the life they were experiencing at the time. Regardless of what you might think of me & the point I'm about to make I have no trouble with people following a religion. The mistake being made is taking religious texts literally. Using them as a guideline to live your life by is fine - the basis of law comes from religion after all. However, given the time in history when the majority of these texts were written and then subsequently translated into other languages it would not be unreasonable to take it that events have been "embellished" which are portayed in them. To clarify this point, according to the Bible the Israelites brought down the walls of Jericho with the sound of trumpets. However, archaeologists have proved conclusively that Jericho had no walls. Religious texts are not just the basis of laws, they're also a promotional/ propaganda tool. However saying something is a fact because it's written in a religious text doesn't actually make it a fact. It was best put to me by a Catholic friend of mine (sadly no longer with us) who said that the only way the Bible, Qu'ran or any other religious doctrine can be taken is by thinking "how would you explain things to a child to make them understand?" as there is no way things written back then should ever be taken at face value. If that makes me some sort of bigot in your eyes then I'm some sort of bigot. I just can't accept as a rational person that books written 1,400 - 2,500 years ago are going to be 100% accurate and to be taken at face value. I'm sorry, it doesn't add up.
SNIAW Is Ok in my books, thanks again for deleting the offending materiel from your sig, Hope Arsenal win today with style
