Symbianize Forum

Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.

All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!

Abrahamic Traditions: Anachronism in the Modern Age

Oo naman, nasa yun kung ilalagay mo ang sarili mo laban sa mundo. Hehe. Syempre don't expect special treatment din, and of course alam mo yung sinasabi na be ready to reap the consequences of your actions.

Private affair ang pornography at pag-inum ng alak. Nasa tao yan kung paano niya gagamitin. Sa lahat ng bagay moderation lang yan. Arbitrary at walang scientific backing ang bible para sabihin na mali yan sa tao. Ang konsepto ng "kasalanan" ng bible ay masyadong arbitrary at pinapakita lang na anong klaseng mga tao ang may akda ng bibliya: stiff sa mga superficial na bagay na di dapat niya panghimasukan, pero liberal sa pagsang-ayon sa rape at slavery. Can anything be more bizarre than that? Dense at masyadong stiff tong mga sinaunang tao na to, twisted ang values at principles. Teka, si Jesus nga sabi sa bible walang problema sa pagtoma ng alcohol di ba? Hehe

Bale po Oo ang sagot mo. Kung wala pong Atomik bomb dahil sa syensya may sasabog po ba na atomikbomb sa Japan?
Kahit hindi naman po natin tingnan sa Bible kung mali ang mga iyan. Sa pananaw nalang natin. Tama po ba ang pagnanasa sa mga babae na hindi mo asawa?
Sa alak naman po. Ano po ba ang naidudulot na maganda sa katawan ng alak? if meron po. Ok lang po ba na e take ang isang bagay na may bad effect sa bandang huli or pagkatapos na e take?
Pahinge po ako ng evidence about dito sir.
Teka, si Jesus nga sabi sa bible walang problema sa pagtoma ng alcohol di ba? Hehe

- - - Updated - - -

By the way po sir may mga tanong po ako na hindi niyo nasagot if hindi ako nagkakamali.
Yung post niyo po na about sa mga ginawang pagpatay sa Bible ng Diyos at mga angel niya at ibtp..
Pwede ko po bang malaman kong bakit nangyari iyon?
 
Mali po ba yung post ko na iyan storm? yes or no?
Ito po ba ang ibig niyo sabihin?
Ang Bibliya ang may kasalanan sa lahat ng kaguluhan dito sa boung mundo at ang Science ay nagagamit lang Bilang sandata?

Read, man. Ang sabi ko ang sinasabi mo actually ay sumasang-ayon sa post ko kulang ka lang sa final conclusion. Kulang ka lang isang step pa.

Kung aware ka sa mga nangyayaring pagtuklas ngayon, lumilitaw kung anong klaseng mga tao ang pinapakitang totoong may akda ng holy books ng Abrahamic religions. Kung familiar ka sa The Prince ni Niccolò Machiavelli na tungkol sa blackguards ng lipunan, makikita mo na perfect example sila: ang pakay nila ay absolute control, pero para di mahalata ay tinatago nila sa paglalagay ng mga superficial na pira-pirasong mabubuting kasabihan kunwari ang bibliya na kung kikilatisin mo ay simpleng generalities lamang at di hamak na di maikukumpara sa universal values ng Buddhism or Confucianism halimbawa. Ikumpara mo na lang lahat ng papa or santo santa sa Christianity ngayon kung kaya ba nilang tapatan ang level ng wisdom ng Dalai Lama halimbawa. Kaya di nakapagtataka na ang maraming malalaking kaguluhan sa mundo mula't-mula sa kasaysayan ng tao ay pinasimulan ng mga Abrahamic traditions mula ng lumitaw sila.

- - - Updated - - -

Tama po ba ang pagnanasa sa mga babae na hindi mo asawa?
Sa alak naman po. Ano po ba ang naidudulot na maganda sa katawan ng alak? if meron po. Ok lang po ba na e take ang isang bagay na may bad effect sa bandang huli or pagkatapos na e take?
Pahinge po ako ng evidence about dito sir.
May problema tayo sa usapan na ganito. Ang problema di mo sinisipat mabuti ang sinasabi ko. Tulad halimbawa: kelan ko sinabi na tama ang pagnanasa sa may asawa ng may asawa? Yan ba ang pagkakaintindi mo lang sa pornography? May batas tayo laban sa extramarital affairs at diyan pa lang ay malinaw na dapat kung saan panig ako naroon.

Look, napakarami ng literature para ipakita sayo na hindi masama ang alak sa katawan ng tao. In fact, sinasabi na kailangan ng katawan ng tao ang at least 30% na alcohol araw-araw para sa maayos na balanse ng katawan at natural na panglaban sa germs. Kung sa lagay naman ng kasiyahan, ang alak ay nagsisilbing life of the party, at di bawal sa tao ang magsaya huwag lang sa ikakasama ng iba. Kahit ang Olympian gods ay paboritong gawain ang social drinking gamit ang nektar ng ambrosia na alak ng mga diyos. Saan ba galing ang mga paniniwala mo na yan? Pinalaki ka ba sa kumbento?
 
Last edited:
^Actually ganyang practices ng mga religious leader at followers niyang sheep lalung-lalo na sa Christian Church sobrang talamak yan. Gagamitin nila ang word of God para sa pansariling interest.

View attachment 290004
 

Attachments

  • stock-vector-a-wolf-in-sheep-clothes-fooling-a-sheep-flock-vector-illustration-with-fourteen-she.jpg
    stock-vector-a-wolf-in-sheep-clothes-fooling-a-sheep-flock-vector-illustration-with-fourteen-she.jpg
    477.1 KB · Views: 1
Ano po ba ang naidudulot na maganda sa katawan ng alak? if meron po. Ok lang po ba na e take ang isang bagay na may bad effect sa bandang huli or pagkatapos na e take?
O ito idadagdag ko pa sa post ko about alcohol sa parte mismo ng religion mo:

Alcohol as Bringer of joy in the Bible:
The Bible also speaks of wine in general terms as a bringer and concomitant of joy, particularly in the context of nourishment and feasting, e.g.:

Psalm 104:14-15: "[The LORD] makes ... plants for man to cultivate – bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart." Gregory of Nyssa (died 395) made a distinction between types of wine (intoxicating and non-intoxicating) - "not that wine which produces drunkenness, plots against the senses, and destroys the body, but such as gladdens the heart, the wine which the Prophet recommends"[119]

Ecclesiastes 9:7: "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do."

Paul advises Timothy that he should not drink water only, but should use a little wine for the sake of his stomach and frequent infirmities. Some have suggested this advice is particularly in reference to purifying low quality drinking water.​

At sa palagay mo ano ang ginawa ni Hesus nung ginawa niyang alak yung tubig sa kasal, inamoy-amoy niya lang yun habang nakaupo siya kasama ang ibang nagdiriwang? Let's be honest here, no hocus-pocus and apologist gymnastics.
 
Read, man. Ang sabi ko ang sinasabi mo actually ay sumasang-ayon sa post ko kulang ka lang sa final conclusion. Kulang ka lang isang step pa.

Kung aware ka sa mga nangyayaring pagtuklas ngayon, lumilitaw kung anong klaseng mga tao ang pinapakitang totoong may akda ng holy books ng Abrahamic religions. Kung familiar ka sa The Prince ni Niccolò Machiavelli na tungkol sa blackguards ng lipunan, makikita mo na perfect example sila: ang pakay nila ay mang-alipin, pero para di mahalata ay tinatago nila sa paglalagay ng mga superficial na pira-pirasong mabubuting kasabihan kunwari ang bibliya na kung kikilatisin mo ay simpleng generalities lamang at di hamak na di maikukumpara sa universal values ng Buddhism or Confucianism halimbawa. Ikumpara mo na lang lahat ng papa or santo santa sa Christianity ngayon kung kaya ba nilang tapatan ang level ng wisdom ng Dalai Lama halimbawa. Kaya di nakapagtataka na ang maraming malalaking kaguluhan sa mundo mula't-mula sa kasaysayan ng tao ay pinasimulan ng mga Abrahamic traditions mula ng lumitaw sila.

- - - Updated - - -


May problema tayo sa usapan na ganito. Ang problema di mo sinisipat mabuti ang sinasabi ko. Tulad halimbawa: kelan ko sinabi na tama ang pagnanasa sa may asawa ng may asawa? Yan ba ang pagkakaintindi mo lang sa pornography? May batas tayo laban sa extramarital affairs at diyan pa lang ay malinaw na dapat kung saan panig ako naroon.

Look, napakarami ng literature para ipakita sayo na hindi masama ang alak sa katawan ng tao. In fact, sinasabi na kailangan ng katawan ng tao ang at least 30% na alcohol araw-araw para sa maayos na balanse ng katawan at natural na panglaban sa germs. Kung sa lagay naman ng kasiyahan, ang alak ay nagsisilbing life of the party, at di bawal sa tao ang magsaya huwag lang sa ikakasama ng iba. Kahit ang Olympian gods ay paboritong gawain ang social drinking gamit ang nektar ng ambrosia na alak ng mga diyos. Saan ba galing ang mga paniniwala mo na yan? Pinalaki ka ba sa kumbento?

Hindi po ako katoliko sir.
Madali lang mag kwento pero mahirap patunayan.
Linawin ko lang po yung sa alak. Paglalasing po yung gusto kong tumbukin jan
Katulad nga po ng post ko na hindi sa lahat ng Science ay disagree ako.
Ok po kung pananaw ninyo na ang Science ay Walang naidudulot na masama sa tao. Nasasa inyo yan. Kayo po yan. Pero hindi nangangahulugan na agree ako sa Lahat ng sinasabi ninyo
Pasensya po ha hindi ko kayo maabot ..

- - - Updated - - -

Pansin ko lang po. Kapg agree sa inyo yung Bible ok po kayo.
But kapag nag post ako ng disagree sa paniniwala niyo Disagree naman po kayo
 
Hindi po ako katoliko sir.
Madali lang mag kwento pero mahirap patunayan.
Linawin ko lang po yung sa alak. Paglalasing po yung gusto kong tumbukin jan
Katulad nga po ng post ko na hindi sa lahat ng Science ay disagree ako.
Ok po kung pananaw ninyo na ang Science ay Walang naidudulot na masama sa tao. Nasasa inyo yan. Kayo po yan. Pero hindi nangangahulugan na agree ako sa Lahat ng sinasabi ninyo
Pasensya po ha hindi ko kayo maabot ..


Pansin ko lang po. Kapg agree sa inyo yung Bible ok po kayo.
But kapag nag post ako ng disagree sa paniniwala niyo Disagree naman po kayo

Kaya nga lahat ng bagay in moderation.

Tingnan mo meron ka na naman statement na "Ok po kung pananaw ninyo na ang Science ay Walang naidudulot na masama sa tao." San galing yan at kelan ko sinabi yan?

Nah, never mind the bible kung ayaw mo siya gamitin ko. Ayaw mo ba ipakita ko kahit ang bible mo sang-ayon naman sa sinasabi ko. Di ko naman sinabi na kailangan ko yun, but since andun sya wala naman nagsabi na bawal di ba? :)
 
Pasensya po. Mali yung pagkaunawa ko dito. Nag loloading na talaga utak ko :)
Oo naman, nasa yun kung ilalagay mo ang sarili mo laban sa mundo.

Hindi naman sa ayaw ko, mahirap lang kasi na hindi ka naniniwala sa Bible tapos gagamitin mu kapag pabor sa iyo. Tapos kung hindi kokontrahin mo.
 
Pasensya po. Mali yung pagkaunawa ko dito. Nag loloading na talaga utak ko :)
Oo naman, nasa yun kung ilalagay mo ang sarili mo laban sa mundo.

Hindi naman sa ayaw ko, mahirap lang kasi na hindi ka naniniwala sa Bible tapos gagamitin mu kapag pabor sa iyo. Tapos kung hindi kokontrahin mo.

Hindi naman komo di naniniwala ang tao sa isang bagay eh di siya pwede gamitin. Kase sa case mo, nakakapagtaka na may position ka halimbawa kontra sa alcohol pero yung bible mo mismo eh di naman kontra sa kanya. Normal na pamamaraan yan sa diskusyon. Tawag diyan ay "cross-referencing."

- - - Updated - - -

Teka easy ka muna, pinagsasabay mo ata trabaho sa pagsagot mo dito nalilito ka na. Take your time sa pagsagot, di naman tayo nagmamadali dito. Salamat.
 
Last edited:
Hindi naman komo di naniniwala ang tao sa isang bagay eh di siya pwede gamitin. Kase sa case mo, nakakapagtaka na may position ka halimbawa kontra sa alcohol pero yung bible mo mismo eh di naman kontra sa kanya. Normal na pamamaraan yan sa diskusyon. Tawag diyan ay "cross-referencing."

- - - Updated - - -

Teka easy ka muna, pinagsasabay mo ata trabaho sa pagsagot mo dito nalilito ka na. Take your time sa pagsagot, di naman tayo nagmamadali dito. Salamat.

aHH OK PO.

Ano ba ang sinasabi ng Bibliya tungkol sa pag-inom ng alak? Kasalanan ba para sa isang Kristiyano ang uminom ng alak?

1Co 6:8 Nguni't kayo rin ang mga nagsisigawa ng kalikuan, at nangagdaraya, at ito'y sa mga kapatid ninyo.
1Co 6:9 O hindi baga ninyo nalalaman na ang mga liko ay hindi magsisipagmana ng kaharian ng Dios? Huwag kayong padaya: kahit ang mga mapakiapid, ni ang mga mananamba sa diosdiosan, ni ang mga mangangalunya, ni ang mga nangbababae, ni ang mga mapakiapid sa kapuwa lalake.
1Co 6:10 Ni ang mga magnanakaw, ni ang mga masasakim, ni ang mga manglalasing, ni ang mga mapagtungayaw, ni ang mga manglulupig, ay hindi mangagmamana ng kaharian ng Dios.

Hinihikayat ng ilang mga talata sa Bibliya ang mga tao na lumayo o umiwas sa pag-inom ng alak (Levitico 10:9; Bilang 6:3; Deuteronomio 14:26; 29: 6; Hukom 13:4, 7, 14; 1 Samuel 1:15; Kawikaan 20:1; 31:4, 6; Isaias 5:11, 22; 24:9; 28:7; 29: 9; 56:12; Mikas 2:11; Lucas 1:15). Gayunman, hindi kinakailangang pagbawalan ang isang Kristiyano na uminom ng serbesa, alak, o ano pa mang uri ng inumin na may alkohol. Subalit inuutusang umiwas sa pagpapakalasing o pagpapakalango sa alak ang mga Kristiyano (Efeso 5:18). Hinahatulan ng Bibliya ang pagpapakalasing at ang masamang epekto nito (Kawikaan 23:29-35). Inuutusan din ang mga Kristiyano na huwag pahintulutang ipaalipin sa anumang bagay kanilang mga katawan (1 Corinto 6:12; 2 Pedro 2:19). Pinagbabawalan din ng Bibliya ang Kristiyano na gumawa ng mga bagay na maaaring makatisod sa kapwa Kristiyano o magkasala laban sa kanilang konsensiya (1 Corinto 8:9-13). Dahil sa ganitong prinsipyo, napakahirap para sa isang Kristiyano na sabihing umiinom siya ng alak para sa kaluwalhatian ng Diyos (1 Corinto 10:31). Ginawang alak ni Hesus ang tubig sa Cana, Galilea. Maaari ding uminom ng alak si Hesus sa ilang okasyon (Juan 2:1-11; Mateo 26:29).

Sa panahon ng Bagong Tipan, ang tubig ay hindi ganoon kalinis. Kung walang modernong panlinis, ang tubig ay punong-puno ng mga bakterya at ibat-ibang klase ng mga mikrobyo ang nakakakontamina dito. Ito'y totoo sa mga bansang kabilang sa mga tinatawag na ikatlong daigdig o mga mahihirap na bansa sa ngayon. Dahilan dito, umiinom palagi ang mga tao ng alak (o inuming mula sa ubas) sapagkat malaki ang posibilidad na hindi ito kontaminado. Sa 1 Timoteo 5:23, tinuruan ni Pablo si Timoteo na huwag lang uminom ng tubig (na maaaring dahilan ng kanyang problema sa tiyan) kundi uminom din ng kaunting alak.

Ang paggawa ng alak noong unang panahon ay hindi gaya sa paggawa ng alak sa kasalukuyan. Hindi rin tamang sabihin na noon ang alak ay katas lamang ng ubas na ginagawang panlaban sa lamig, subalit mali ring sabihin na katulad lang iyon ng mga alak na ginagamit natin sa panahong ito. Muli, hindi kinakailangang pagbawalan ang isang Kristiyano na uminom ng serbesa, alak o anumang inumin na may alkohol. Ang alkohol ay hindi likas na masama sa kanyang sarili. Ang paglalasing at pagpapakalango sa alak at adiksyon sa alkohol ang masama at dapat iwasan ng isang Kristiyano (Efeso 5:18; 1 Corinto 6:12). May mga prinsipyo sa Bibliya laban sa pag-inom ng alak. Dahil dito napakahirap ipagtanggol ng isang Kristiyano ang pag-inom ng alak. Ang pag-inom ng alak, gaano man kaunti o karami ay hindi normal na nagbibigay kaluguran sa Diyos.
Marami pa po yung mga verse na salungat sa paglalasing/
 
Last edited:
^Actually ganyang practices ng mga religious leader at followers niyang sheep lalung-lalo na sa Christian Church sobrang talamak yan. Gagamitin nila ang word of God para sa pansariling interest.

View attachment 1159335

Hehe, ikaw talaga. Tupa pa rin ba yung malaki, parang aso na yun ah. Baka wolf pa yun, hahahaha.

Teka nga, gara ng screen name mo Lucius Crassus, nabasa mo na ba yung gawa naman ni Niccolò Machiavelli na kababayan mo sa Roma, yung The Prince? Sa libro na yan makikita mo tumpak na tumpak yung mga sinasabi mo. :)

- - - Updated - - -

aHH OK PO.

1Co 6:8 Nguni't kayo rin ang mga nagsisigawa ng kalikuan, at nangagdaraya, at ito'y sa mga kapatid ninyo.
1Co 6:9 O hindi baga ninyo nalalaman na ang mga liko ay hindi magsisipagmana ng kaharian ng Dios? Huwag kayong padaya: kahit ang mga mapakiapid, ni ang mga mananamba sa diosdiosan, ni ang mga mangangalunya, ni ang mga nangbababae, ni ang mga mapakiapid sa kapuwa lalake.
1Co 6:10 Ni ang mga magnanakaw, ni ang mga masasakim, ni ang mga manglalasing, ni ang mga mapagtungayaw, ni ang mga manglulupig, ay hindi mangagmamana ng kaharian ng Dios.

Marami pa po yung mga verse na salungat sa paglalasing/

Yun nga, kaya sinasabi ko lahat ng bagay na sobra di mabuti. Ang alak in moderation hindi problema. Ang problema pag bangenge na sige pa rin. Kahit pagkain masiba ka pinaikli mo na buhay mo. Mga simpleng bagay lang to masyadong self-evident at self-explanatory pwede na nating bitiwan at iwanan topic na to.
 
Hehe, ikaw talaga. Tupa pa rin ba yung malaki, parang aso na yun ah. Baka wolf pa yun, hahahaha.

Teka nga, gara ng screen name mo Lucius Crassus, nabasa mo na ba yung gawa naman ni Niccolò Machiavelli na kababayan mo sa Roma, yung The Prince? Sa libro na yan makikita mo tumpak na tumpak yung mga sinasabi mo. :)

- - - Updated - - -



Yun nga, kaya sinasabi ko lahat ng bagay na sobra di mabuti. Ang alak in moderation hindi problema. Ang problema pag bangenge na sige pa rin. Kahit pagkain masiba ka pinaikli mo na buhay mo. Mga simpleng bagay lang to masyadong self-evident at self-explanatory pwede na nating bitiwan at iwanan topic na to.

ok po.
Pero salamat, May mga bago akong natutunan.
Out na ako :)
 
ok po.
Pero salamat, May mga bago akong natutunan.
Out na ako :)

Okay. Salamat din.



An Abrahamic Tradition: Wiping Out Competing Gods
The God of the Abrahamic religions, so far as it is concerned in The Bible, The Koran, and in history, hates opposing Gods. The Israelites are described as being commanded by God, time and time again, to wage war against and kill nonbelieving pagans because they dare to worship icons, fake gods, and any number of unapproved things. Worshipping wrongly is prohibited in the traditional Ten Commandments, and is consistently one of the most punished crimes in the holy texts of Jews, Christians and Muslims. The emphasis on correctness of individual belief and individual salvation has led monotheism down an intolerant and often violent path in history. The development that "insiders are correct" and "outsiders are wrong" is not a feature of simple tribal religions9, but this idea of correctness developed alongside literacy, especially in monotheistic religions, finding particular prominence in Christianity of the first century10. It made the new monotheism sectarian, schismatic and aggressive; social and moral laws were deemed inferior to the new emphasis on textual fundamentalism. It heralded a new type of religion, fundamentally hostile to all other religions.11


This section is taken from The Causes of Fundamentalism, Intolerance and Extremism in World Religions, and Some Solutions: 5.1. Monotheism and Violent Intolerance by Vexen Crabtree (2012).


Of cancer and Abrahamic religions
attachment.php

Defending the Flags of Our Beliefs
Atheists and scientists do not kill each other over their beliefs. The adherents of superstring theory have never killed opposing theorists, and Lamarckian Evolutionists never killed any Darwinian Evolutionists on account of their beliefs. Newton and Einstein may have disagreed, but they refrained from violently attacking each other's followers. Like them, Arius and Athanasius disagreed over theory in the 4th century, although in their case it wasn't physics, but about the nature of Christ. The Arians and the Nicene Christians, however, soon ended up damning each other to hell because of the other's "wrong" beliefs, and then resorted to murder, aggression and burning until the Arians had been wiped out. Well, that is one way to settle a theoretical dispute. But why is it the religious way? There is something about religious beliefs that leads to violent intolerance. I think it is this: the beliefs that you cherish, but which you think are maybe silly or untrue, are the beliefs that you will defend most irrationally and most aggressively. It's a defence mechanism. Rather than subject dodgy beliefs to the rigors of debate and questioning, it is easier to claim outrage and act aggressively when dodgy beliefs are challenged. This is why scientists, who want to learn which theories best describe the truth, actively engage in debate without ever, in history, killing each other over their differences with other strands of scientists.

When it comes to disputes about the world, political and cultural differences between groups can often be dealt with democratically, through argumentation and debate, with both parties trying to convince the others that they are right. It continues because each side thinks it is possible to conclude the dispute through discussion. Compromise keeps things from breaking down: you give a little in one area, but have to give up in another. But religionists can come to deny any chance of compromise. Those with stern religious beliefs often believe various issues have a universal, absolute and cosmic significance. They will not compromise on their position. Malise Ruthven in his book on fundamentalism warns that this is particularly dangerous3. It is the basis for fundamentalism. Religious differences often become violent, endless struggles, because both sides elevate their struggles to ones not between them and us, but between good and evil itself. By giving arguments a cosmic, absolute and universal significance, religious groups make violent solution the only recourse. The battles between Israel and its neighbours is a case in point.
Even standard sociological inquiries about beliefs and the history of beliefs can be found offensive simply because the attempt to rationally describe belief requires questions to be asked about how beliefs work.

“The sociologist of religion may also offend a person's religious sensibilities by subjecting his or her beliefs to rational scrutiny.”
Gods in the Global Village, Lester R. Kurtz (2007)​

Someone once said it would do no good to eradicate religion. He said "then they'd just kill each other in the name of something else. Like which football team they support!" I still think we would be better off. Football teams do not claim to be divinely inspired. They do not force upon people any particular intellectual framework, nor link it to moral theory. Under footballism, people are still free to inquire about the world with a free mind. The fact that religions claim divinity, that they claim absolute truth and link morality, society, authority and philosophy all into one whole, makes people more likely to fight and die for them. What is so weak about religious truths that they require defending with such bloodshed? It is this: people would rather cling to wishful thinking and false hopes, rather than face the complex realities of life. Simple answers appeal to people more than complicated scientific ones.

Because religious people secretly doubt religious beliefs, they do not permit them to be calmly questioned. They fear that their beliefs will unravel. Instead, they declare that faith is greater than intellectualism (in other words: they want to continue believing even though the evidence is against them). They declare that it is offensive to question their beliefs. They declare that questions are wrong! And if you persist in your questioning as a person, they'll declare you an intolerant bigot. If two such groups of faithful people meet, the consequences are dangerous for all in their midst. The starting point of this slippery slope was when individuals ceased to allow their beliefs to be calmly debated and questioned.” MORE


Suicide Cults
In 1978 over 900 people died when the People's Temple (frequently known as Jonestown) murdered their (276) own children with poison. The rest of the community then followed suit, killing themselves (and shooting some). They had previously practised the suicide routine. Their leader shot himself. He was American Rev. James (Jim) Warren Jones, an ordained priest in the mainstream Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide: The People's Temple by Vexen Crabtree (2009)​

This is clearly a case of some 900 people having some very odd ideas about what actions are permissible and why. Their leader had followers who testified that he could cure cancers and disease with his hands. If members instinctively thought more critically, skeptically, and viewed reality through more scientific eyes (understanding the placebo effect, for example), such beliefs could not have been sustained. The People's Temple is by far not the only suicide cult to have some very odd beliefs.

Another American group, the Branch Davidians, [...] started out with Biblical ideas about the cataclysms of judgement day, and ended up stockpiling weapons. It culminated with the Waco siege where over 80 of the religionists died during a shoot-out with authorities in 1993.

Irrationality and susceptibility to believe some unlikely things about the universe can lead to ideals and sectarianism that separate 'others' from their humanity, and allow despicable acts to be undertaken. Aum Shinrikyo was the religious movement responsible for the 1995 sarin gas attack on Tokyo's subway that killed a dozen people and injured thousands. The movement had also already murdered others in order to protect itself. The leader believed in karma, and preached that murder was justified because it stopped people accumulating bad karma. He had picked up Christian ideas, and preached that such actions were an act of mercy, and started preaching about Armageddon.
Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide: The People's Temple by Vexen Crabtree (2009)​

It is a similar story with the Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate, and others. All groups start out with some beliefs that are acceptable to many, but, the system of beliefs becomes built up, with idea on idea, until the entire group are completely impossible to understand. It is always a slippery slope, and at each stage, there are not enough people to stand up and question the validity of the principles behind the beliefs, the source of the experiences/revelations, and the possibility of mass delusion. People invest so much in these beliefs, defending them from outsiders, that they become more important than life itself.

This is why questioning beliefs is not something that should be restricted to "other people's beliefs." We should question our own beliefs. Our entire community of friends could be making assumptions about reality that are unfounded. Entire groups of people can misinterpret phenomenon and experiences, simply because they are unacquainted with the ways in which our thoughts can deceive us, and of how to approach reality in a scientifically-minded way.
 

Attachments

  • cancer-religion-cure.jpg
    cancer-religion-cure.jpg
    67.6 KB · Views: 113
Last edited:
The Dark Side of Absolutes in Religion
attachment.php

Religious Fundamentalism
It is easy to see how the acceptance of ideas and the interpretation of personal experiences without taking due heed for the way our brains can trick us, is a combination that can lead communities down paths away from normal society. Some groups such as the ones already discussed on this page become suicide cults, others remain as fundamentalist cells within mainstream religions, or sometimes become religious groups in their own right. It is dangerous when their beliefs become seen as unquestionable because they happen to be part of a religious worldview. Sam Harris in his book against religious fundamentalism and extremism (2006) warns that when we place someone's opinions beyond criticism because they are sacred to them, we place that person beyond rehabilitation to common sense.

Not long after the arise of Christianity, the Church Fathers argued that The Bible contains everything we need to know. This doctrine was deadly poison to science and to human development, and it found its greatest expression at a continental level during the European Dark Ages. The theologian Robert M. Price warns that even today many people use the Bible as a tool to make others bypass rational thought, often by "cultivating superstitious fears", in order to spiritually strong-arm others around to their own stern point of view.
“The authority of the Fathers, and the prevailing belief that the Scriptures contain the sum, of all knowledge, discouraged any investigation of Nature. If by chance a passing interest was taken in some astronomical question, it was at once settled by a reference to such authorities as the writings of Augustine or Lactantius, not by an appeal to the phenomena of the heavens. So great was the preference given to sacred over profane learning that Christianity had been in existence fifteen hundred years, and had not produced a single astronomer.”
History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science by John William Draper (1881)​

Harris argues that the blame doesn't only lay with the fundamentalists themselves, but with the majority of non-extremists who sit in the middle ground, facilitating an environment where crazy beliefs can foster without question. In all communities that place large parts of their mythology into a "holy", "sacred", "unquestionable" or "god-given" category, a large space is created for more extreme beliefs to take hold in the same categories, and lead the community down some potentially dangerous paths. The way to end all this is to put an end to the idea that religious beliefs should not be routinely questioned.
 

Attachments

  • respect religion.jpg
    respect religion.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Everyday Errors in Thinking Continually Skew Our Beliefs and Experiences

attachment.php


Cognitive errors are those types of systematic mistakes which our brains make when presenting ideas and correlations to our conscious selves. They result from us applying evolutionarily developed rules of thumb to the complexities of life without taking due heed of the need for critical and cautious evaluation of our own thought processes - our beliefs are largely emotional, not intellectual. Human errors in general thinking can lead individuals, or whole communities, to come to explain types of events and experiences in fantastical ways. Before we can comprehensively guard against such cumulative errors, we need to learn the ways in which our brains can misguide us. They are divided into three areas: the internal errors of thinking, errors with our actual perceptions, and social errors that result from the way we communicate ideas and the effects of traditions and dogmas.

We all suffer from systematic cognitive dysfunctions; they infuse the very way we notice and analyse data, and distort our forming of conclusions. Emotional and societal factors influence our thinking much more than we like to admit. Our expectations and recent experiences change the way we recall memories. Even our very perceptions are effected by preconscious cognitive factors; what we see, feel, taste and hear are all subject to interpretation before we are even aware of them. Our brains were never meant to be the cool, rational, mathematical-logical computers that we like to sometimes pretend them to be.

  • People easily misperceive random events as evidence that backs up their beliefs.
  • We attribute causes to events based on our beliefs even when we don't know we're doing it.
  • Physiological causes can lay behind even profound supernatural experiences.
  • Our perception of reality is distorted by our expectations and beliefs.
  • Our experiences are not objective, but are informed by our mindset and culture.

We can take preventive steps. Learning to think skeptically and carefully and to recognize that our very experiences and perceptions can be colored by societal and subconscious factors should help us to maintain our cool. Beliefs should not be taken lightly, and evidence should be cross-checked. This especially applies to "common-sense" facts that we learn from others by word of mouth and traditional knowledge. Above all, however, our most important tool is knowing what types of cognitive errors we, as a species, are prone to making.
 

Attachments

  • 161107people_reason_badly-voltaire.jpg
    161107people_reason_badly-voltaire.jpg
    72.6 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
We Often Do Not Know the Reasons for Our Own Behavior
attachment.php


Human beings are not generally in touch with their own motivations and instincts. We often find that our analytical idea of who we are is at odds with our actions and thoughts. Cognitive dissonance is the strange feeling we experience when we behave in ways that do not mesh with our own sense of self; it is often our idea which changes to match our behavior, and not the other way round. This state of affairs has long been investigated by sociologists and psychologists:

“Nisbett and Wilson (1977) claimed that people are generally unaware of the processes influencing their behavior. According to them (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977, p.248), accurate introspective reports can be explained in terms of a priori theories:

"When people are asked to report how a particular stimulus influenced a particular response, they do so not by consulting a memory of the mediating process, but by applying or generating causal theories about the effects of that type of stimulus on that type of response."

This view was supported by discovering that an individual's introspections about what is determining his or her behavior are often no more accurate than the guesses about those determinants made by other people. [...]

In one study, subjects were presented with five essentially identical pairs of stockings and were asked to decide which pair was the best. After they had made their choice, they were asked to indicate why they had chosen that particular pair. Most subjects chose the right-most pair, and so their decisions were actually affected by relative spatial position. [... But] they vehemently denied that [spatial position] had played any part in their decision, referring instead to slight differences in color, texture, and so on among the pairs of stockings as having been important.”

Cognitive Psychology by Michael Eysenck and Mark Keane (1995).​

We make a model of our own behavior in our heads, and use it to theorize about our own behavior in the same way that we theorize about other people's behavior. Evolutionary biologists have theorized that our very consciousness is actually the result of the cognitive procedures we use to analyze other people - a valuable social skill. When this skill is applied to ourselves, the result consciousness itself. I discuss many of these issues on Free Will and Determinism by Vexen Crabtree (1999).
“Most people believe they know how they themselves think, how others think too, and even how institutions evolve. But they are wrong. Their understanding is based on folk psychology, the grasp of human nature by common sense - defined (by Einstein) as everything learned to the age of eighteen - shot through with misconceptions, and only slightly advanced over ideas employed by the Greek philosophers.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
by E. O. Wilson (1998)​

There is a reason I mention all this. The fact is that we don't just misunderstand the causes of our own behavior, but also of our own beliefs. The things we believe, see, and experience, are subject to our interpretative mechanisms, and if we understand these factors better than we can obtain greater control over our lives and opinions, and make them lay in sync with the evidence better. As long as we remain ignorant of the types of things that cause our own beliefs, we remain disabled. This is where we realize the importance of cognitive psychology and epistemology in our efforts to question superstitions and beliefs that are not based on truth.
 

Attachments

  • 161110-mirage.jpg
    161110-mirage.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
The Benefits of Looking Into Opposing Views
attachment.php

The search for truth requires us by definition to attempt to find out what is true. Social customs, personal reflection, reliance upon our primary senses, our memories, our thoughts and our methods of deliberation and finally, our own convictions, can all work against our endeavors to discover the truths of reality. Whatever our beliefs, we must seek out alternative views—opposing views—and see what progress they have made. Our reaction to these other opinions defines whether or not we are serious about our search for the truth. To attack them because they disagree, to ignore them, to shout them down, to ridicule them and to place your own beliefs beyond question are all the hallmarks of someone who is more interested in displaying the posture of someone righteous but who is afraid of the truth. To engage and debate, calmly and personably, is the hallmark of someone who genuinely cares about the truth. Always ask yourself during debates: Which type of person am I?

The art of questioning beliefs and placing emphasis on correct thought, careful deliberation and evidence, is called skepticism. There are skeptical communities in all developed countries.
“Skeptics have a particular challenge with science and moral values, because for us science is a moral value. Critical thinking, honest engagement with the evidence, understanding the world as it is, avoiding self-deception, intellectual integrity, these all have moral stature in our lives.”
Dr Barry Fagin in Skeptical Inquirer (2013)

Talking of political decisions—in particular the President of the USA and decisions on whether or not to go to war—in "Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed!" by Robert Carroll (2011), the author writes:
“To push away dissenters and draw closer those who agree with your gut feelings is the worst thing an executive can do when making life and death decisions. [...]

"One result of surrounding oneself with sycophants is that not all alternatives are considered; the only options that get considered are those that are seen as promoting what the group members think the leader wants. Group members tend not to offer ideas that might be seen as critical of the leader. On the other hand, group members are quick to attack anyone whose ideas conflict with the group's mindset. A defensive wall is built around the mindset; all criticism is seen as obstruction and must be defended against at all costs.”

Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed!
Robert Carroll (2011)​

In order to correctly gauge our own views, we must engage with those who disagree and genuinely try to understand their point of view. It is this that makes science, and skeptical thinking, a much superior method of ascertaining what is true or not. It is also a harder path than the opposite route: dogmatic thinking, unquestionable beliefs, taboo topics, and complete dismissal of intellectual opponents is a guarantee that you are entombed in a castle of error, violently defending your ideas against the outside world.
 

Attachments

  • george-orwell.jpg
    george-orwell.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:

INTRODUCTION

⚖ Most scholars today agree that women internationally step by step became second rate citizens and lost all their power, autonomy, independence, rights and consistently assigned a passive role in the society as soon as Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) became widespread. The gendering of those religions is oppressively male . The creator in Genesis is presented as an Old Male Sovereign Outsider who relate to the world by way of command. It is a male story of power, a story of hierarchical command and control. Religious discrimination against women is still alive and thriving! The texts of the Torah, Bible and Quran preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women! They teach that women are not only inferior, but also must obey men, because God tells us that men are their masters.

The texts of these so-called holy books systematically ensure a second-class status for women! And all these things are forced upon us by a Loving God, and preached by the prophets of this very same Loving God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all berate women for causing humanity to be driven out of paradise. As a result of the original sin of the first woman, people lost the gift of immortality, had to work hard to find food, and were no longer blessed with the ability to interact directly with God Genesis, chapter 3. The fault of this first and original sin rests heavily upon the shoulders of womankind, justifying all manner of religion-justified nastiness directed against them.​

Adam and Eve - The Original Sin of the first woman : A Myth Whose Time Is Up
View attachment 294501

The Quran tells the followers of Islam that women are inferior to men, and require punishment for even suspected disobedience...

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.​
Quran 4:34​

This verse in the Quran has done more than any other to justify discrimination against women, to justify their inferior position, as well as actually encouraging violence against women.

Arabs Raping and Enslaving women and selling them in Mecca and Medina markets
View attachment 294503

Stoning to death a girl for refusing to marry
View attachment 281429

View attachment 294510..................View attachment 281439

ORTHODOX JEWISH MORNING PRAYER:

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,
who did not make me a Gentile,
who did not make me a Slave,
who did not make me a Woman.​

As mentioned earlier religious discrimination against women is still alive and thriving even today, in the 21st century! This prayer is said every morning by many fundamentalist Jewish men around the world and it is just one of many examples to show the hierarchical command and control of Abrahamic religions. Women here are viewed as inferior as Slaves and God is portrayed as a Sovereign Male King of the Universe.

Bible:
Verses that are quoted below are from the revised New International Version of the Bible, a favorite of evangelicals who describe themselves as liberal. Similar verses from Torah, Older Testaments and especially Quran are much worse and preach discrimination against women beyond imagination that we are not even going to post their passages here.

TO THE WOMAN GOD SAID:
I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. Genesis 3:16​

A WIFE IS A MAN’S PROPERTY:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.​
Exodus 20:17​

DAUGHTERS CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD:
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7[/INDENT]

A RAPED DAUGHTER CAN BE SOLD TO HER RAPIST:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29​

COLLECTING WIVES AND SEX SLAVES IS A SIGN OF STATUS:
He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 1 Kings 11:3​

USED BRIDES DESERVE DEATH:
If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21​

WOMEN, BUT ONLY VIRGINS, ARE TO BE TAKEN AS SPOILS OF WAR:
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18​

MENSTRUATING WOMEN ARE SPIRITUALLY UNCLEAN:
When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, . . . The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge. You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them. Leviticus 15: 19-31​

A WOMAN IS TWICE AS UNCLEAN AFTER GIVING BIRTH TO GIRL AS TO A BOY:
A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. ‘ On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. Leviticus 12: 1-8

A WOMAN’S PROMISE IS BINDING ONLY IF HER FATHER OR HUSBAND AGREES:

When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. . . . . A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. Numbers 30:1-16​

WOMEN SHOULD BE SEEN NOT HEARD:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34​

WIVES SHOULD SUBMIT TO THEIR HUSBAND’S INSTRUCTIONS AND DESIRES:

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18​

IN CASE YOU MISSED THAT SUBMISSION THING:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24​

MORE SUBMISSION – AND CHILDBEARING AS A FORM OF ATONEMENT:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15​

WOMEN WERE CREATED FOR MEN:
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10​

SLEEPING WITH WOMEN IS DIRTY:
No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb. Revelation 14:3-4​


This short list above is just a sampling of the Bible verses that either instruct or illustrate proper relationships between men and women. Fundamentalists believe that the texts of Torah, Bible and Quran are the literally perfect word of the Almighty, essentially dictated by God to the writers. To believe that these holy books is the literally perfect word of God is to believe that women are tainted seductresses who must be controlled by men.

Traditional rules that govern male-female relationships are grounded more in property rights than civil rights. Men essentially have ownership of women, whose lives are scripted to serve an end—bearing offspring. It is very important to men that they know whose progeny they are raising, so sexual morality has focused primarily on controlling women’s sex activity and maintaining their purity and value as assets. Traditional gender roles and rules evolved on the presumption that women don’t have control over their fertility. In other words, modern contraception radically changed a social compact that had existed for literally thousands of years.

Some people don’t welcome change. Modern scholars now challenge such fundamentals as a historical Adam and the special status that Abraham’s God gave to straight males. Fundamentalists are fighting desperately to hang on to certainties and privileges they once saw as an Abrahamic birthright. If they can’t keep women in line, it’s all over. The future ends up in the hands of cultural creatives, scientists, artists, inquiring minds, and girls. It’s horrifying.
 

Attachments

  • common theme.jpg
    common theme.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 7
  • religions vs women01.jpg
    religions vs women01.jpg
    113.4 KB · Views: 8
  • banner-sin_of_eve.jpg
    banner-sin_of_eve.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 59
  • Adam and Eve - The Original Sin.jpg
    Adam and Eve - The Original Sin.jpg
    136.5 KB · Views: 2
  • Arab Taziz Raping and Enslaving Women.jpg
    Arab Taziz Raping and Enslaving Women.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 6
  • pedophilia.jpg
    pedophilia.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 10
  • Religion has ever been anti-human.jpg
    Religion has ever been anti-human.jpg
    106.8 KB · Views: 63
  • prophet says.jpg
    prophet says.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 8
  • lot vs girl turned stone.jpg
    lot vs girl turned stone.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 6
  • stoning bible.jpg
    stoning bible.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
attachment.php

attachment.php


ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS vs. WOMEN

............
attachment.php
attachment.php


ISLAM
Part 1/4


Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women
James M. Arlandson

Islam in its purest form honors and elevates women, so we are told. But does it?

Truthfully, too often textual reality (the Quran) matches up with seventh-century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect this excessively patriarchal culture. If Allah and Muhammad improved on this patriarchy, then they did not go far enough for a worldwide religion that claims universality.

Therefore, the following rules and attitudes should in no way be transferred to today’s world.

But before reading the list, we should prevent a strategy of Muslim polemicists and missionaries who believe that Islam is the best religion in the world and who want it to spread around the globe. Sometimes they attempt to refute my top ten lists. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a long book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all the preceding chapters.

Likewise, Muslim polemicists must not skip over all of the links under each point or all of the commentary from a respected and traditional Muslim scholar, Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi (d. 1979) (The Meaning of the Qur’an). They must not take a shortcut, but must instead do the hard work of refuting all of the supporting articles and Maududi himself. This present "top ten" article is merely a summary of all of the data found in these back-up articles and Maududi’s ideas, all of which are quickly referenced under each point.

Here are the top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women.

10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.
The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that "a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint."

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). After the Quran, the hadith come second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363-3365.

See these parallel hadith here and here.

We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.
. . . "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning." (Bukhari)

Here
is the back-up article. This one also provides back up material. See the section at the beginning "Women Are Men’s Property."

9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women." (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here.)

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness. It should be noted that some Muslim missionaries and polemicists assert that since women make up the majority of the world, it only stands to reason that they would be the majority in hell. In reply, however, this misses the point—and may miss the possibility that women may be more spiritual than men. Regardless, the reason that women make up the majority in hell is their harshness and ingratitude. So it has nothing to do with a mathematical majority. Islam clearly does not honor women.

See this article for details on women in Islamic hell.

Muhammad was also superstitious (see here for the evidence). This next hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.
I heard the Prophet saying. "Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house." (Bukhari)

Here is the back-up article. This one is too (scroll down to the Endnotes and see the brief discussion about Muslim women in hell).

8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see these hadith here and here and here.

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara’id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.

This Islamic law is regressive. But in the US, for example, the inheritance is divided equally among all siblings, regardless of the gender. No religious law prohibits this from happening in advance. So American secular law fits into a modern context better, where women have more economic opportunities and freedom.

This online booklet has a short explanation on women’s inheritance "rights." Click on Chapter 15.
Along with the previous link, here is the back-up article.

7. A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

It seems that the foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may "forget" something. This goes to the nature of womankind. Philosophers teach us that one of the main differences between animals and humans lies in humankind’s rationality. But this verse implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Sura 2:282:

The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind."(Bukhari, emphasis added)

Here is the back-up article, and so is this one. This article too explains Islam’s view on women’s mental inabilities (scroll down to "Women Are Inferior to Men"), citing many hadith and Muslim commentators.

6. A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. (In that case) there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why should it be necessary to have the intervening steps of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

To see this tragedy in real life, go to this question and answer at a traditional Muslim fatwa website. Apparently, a Muslim husband pronounced divorce three times, the divorce is final, and now he regrets his decision made in haste and anger. The cleric or scholar says that they are allowed to reconcile only if she follows the Quranic steps of her marrying someone else, consummating that marriage, and then his divorcing her. However, Islam should allow this original divorced couple to reunite without the intervening steps or without an analysis of different levels of anger (click on the link). Let them reconcile—period.

As for divorce generally,

This article analyzes the ethics behind Quranic divorce procedures and contrasts them with the New Testament.

This very short article at a Muslim website shows concern for the divorce rate in Islam.

This short page at a Muslim website explains divorce.

This short article at a (sectarian) Muslim website also gives an overview on divorce, under the larger section on women.

The next two links demonstrate that sharia (Islamic law) generally must not be allowed to spread around the world.

This news report says that problems emerge in the modern world during the Islamic divorce proceedings.

This news report says that Malaysia permits "text messaging" divorce.

At this Muslim website an Islamic scholar answers the question of a Muslim who wrote in about divorce.

Here is a fatwa (legal decree) on divorce from a Muslim website.

These links add up to this: Islamic divorce is ambiguous and favors the man.

Here is the back-up article, and this one replies to a Muslim polemicist. It analyzes the differences between Christianity and Islam on divorce.


TO BE CONTINUED....
 

Attachments

  • honor killing003.jpg
    honor killing003.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 55
  • religious conviction allow men to be evil.jpg
    religious conviction allow men to be evil.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 55
  • dalai lama on inadequacy of religion for morality.jpg
    dalai lama on inadequacy of religion for morality.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
ISLAM
Part 2/4



ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS vs. WOMEN


attachment.php
attachment.php
attachment.php


Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women
James M. Arlandson


continued from above post

5. Slave-girls are sexual property of their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. But Islam traffics in injustice too often.

Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so.

For more information on this Quran-inspired immorality, see this short article.

See also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave-girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars while being based in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslim jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave-girls.

Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists "received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus." They asked the prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invokes the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; also go here and here)


That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

This article quotes the Quran and many hadith passages on sex with prisoners of war. It also analyzes modern Islamic scholars on the topic. They support this practice. In Appendix One, the author answers a Muslim charge that the Old Testament allows this practice. This article[/URL] provides further details on Muhammad’s encouragement to his soldiers to "do it."

Besides the two previous links, here is the back-up article.

4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

The clause "marry those who have fallen in your possession" means slave-girls who were captured after a war. Men may "marry" them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave-girls as they wanted.

Maududi paraphrases the verse: "If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities" (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).

However, Muhammad would not allow polygamy for his son-in-law Ali, because an extra wife would hurt Muhammad’s first daughter Fatima, by his first wife Khadija. Fatima was married to Ali.

I heard Allah’s Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, "Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don’t give permission, and will not give permission unless ‘Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me." (Bukhari)

Despite the fact that Muhammad is very much aware that polygamy is hurtful and insulting to women, he still practices it himself and allows it for his followers in general.

Muhammad’s "special" marriage privileges

Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre-Islamic days of "ignorance."

The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave-girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . . (Maududi vol. 4, p. 111, emphasis added).

This verse says that besides those women whose dower Muhammad paid, he may marry slave-girls—that is, he may have sex with them (see this article for this Quran-inspired immorality). Maududi references three slave-girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave-girls.

But the capstone of these "special" marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex-wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son-in-law divorced her with the prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter-in-law in a state of undress, so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah reveals to him that this marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36-44.

This hadith says that Muhammad used to visit nine (or eleven) wives in one night. See the parallel hadith here, here, and here.

This article explains why Christians do not accept polygamy.

This page in an online index explains polygamy.

For a more thorough analysis of polygamy in the Quran, go to this online booklet and click on Chapter 12.

See this article on the number of wives and human sexual property Muhammad allowed himself.

Besides the previous four links, here is the back-up article. At the end, it links to more articles on the dubious marriage and divorce of Zaid, Zainab, and Muhammad.

to be continued...
 

Attachments

  • 161128A-fight-islam-for-me.jpg
    161128A-fight-islam-for-me.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 53
  • 161128B-Muslim Child Bride Wedding Britain-small.jpg
    161128B-Muslim Child Bride Wedding Britain-small.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 53
  • 161128C-killed for being raped-small.jpg
    161128C-killed for being raped-small.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:
Islam

Part 3/4



attachment.php


ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS vs. WOMEN

attachment.php
attachment.php




Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women
James M. Arlandson



continued from above

3. A Muslim polygamist may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives
.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, (in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law) do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)
Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383-84, note 161). He writes:

Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill-natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

This means that wives are the source of a man’s inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super-human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

Maududi continues:

In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no-longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

Where may Maududi get his idea about keeping or divorcing an unattractive wife?

This article (see "the unpleasant truth behind divorce in Sura 4:130") demonstrates that Muhammad wanted to divorce one of his wives because she was overweight and old. Instead of a divorce, she gave up her "turn" in the "rotation" with the prophet, who gladly agreed with her proposal. See these three hadith here, here and here.

In addition to the link to the previous article, here is the back-up article.

2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded—as if domestic violence in any form is acceptable).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari, emphasis added)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:

"He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain." (Muslim no. 2127)

See this article for fuller details on wife-beating. It clarifies many translations of the verse. At the end, it has many links to modern interpretations of Sura 4:34 and to arguments for wife-beating today.

This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics.

This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense.

This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of Sura 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses.

Finally, this article is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics.

1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran-believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

This is precisely what happened in Iran after the religious revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. A girl’s marriage age was lowered to nine years.
Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

The hadith says:

. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari; since this is a serious issue, see the parallel hadith here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)

This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." (Bukhari; see this hadith that shows Muhammad’s dream life in regard to his pursuit of little Aisha, and this one and this one. These last three links contrast with Muhammad’s pursuit of Aisha through her father Abu Bakr. Apparently Muhammad did not wait for Allah to fulfill his desire for a six year old, but took matters in his own hands.

This hadith recounts the fifty-plus-year-old Muhammad’s and the nine-year-old Aisha’s first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

. . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)

This hadith describes Muhammad counseling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron." He said, "Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, "Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?" (Bukhari) See parallel hadith here and here.

This hadith describes Muhammad’s and Aisha’s ill-timed sexual encounters:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bukhari)

For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad’s domestic acts even for seventh-century Arabia, readers should refer to this article.

This article responds to Muslim defenses of this indefensible Quranic permission.

This summary of a news reports reveals Pakistan lowering the marriage age to twelve for a girl.

According to this report an ethnic minority in China allows marriages for girls at nine years old. The report says that Islam has influenced this minority and practice.
 

Attachments

  • 161130E-sum up islam.jpg
    161130E-sum up islam.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 45
  • 161130D-wife beating divinely sanctioned-SMALL.jpg
    161130D-wife beating divinely sanctioned-SMALL.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 45
  • 161130A-women donkeys-SMALL.jpg
    161130A-women donkeys-SMALL.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom