mickijo, I'm not claiming knowledge of how it is applied in practice (I think I made that clear) nor am I talking about Islamic countries. I'm suggesting that in this country with the framework of protection we have in place I don't see a place for the state intefering in peoples domestic arrangements unless good reason can be shown to do so other than "God does not like it" (and there issues which God seemed to be much clearer about which have been ditched as cultural context by most of the church).

I'd also ask how much worse the situation you describe is than those who find their lives torn apart by a partner getting bored with a marriage and walks out taking the kids, the house, the superannuation, future income etc with them. How much worse than the betrayal faced by those who have a partner going behind their backs to deal with what according to the bible we all do (at least in our hearts if not in practice)? How much worse than so many things that are part of ordinary marriages which are a consequence of two people trying to build lives together?

If Islam supports polygamy then women who choose to belong to the Islamic faith have that issue as a consequence of their faith. If it is all that bad it might serve to deter the vast numbers of impressionable young women who are apparently converting to Islam (one recent poster seemed to be very concerned about impressionable young women converting to Islam).

Some people might find that their needs are fullfilled much better in a small group than in a two person marriage. How many parents never get quiet time together when kids are young and how easy could it be with three adults in the house?

I've been through one western style marriage and know that we can't sit on our high seat and tell everybody else how to do it because we have all the answers.

R0bert

Meredith

'Can poly marriage claim benefits/housing for many wives?'

While working for the parks I saw quite a few men with more than one wife. They get married in the mosque and the marriage is not registered with the aussie authorities and the women keep their single names. Or as Jamilla points out...

'Muslim women have always been entitled to a separate legal personality and may retain their own names on marriage'

So it's all perfectly legal I suppose.

They all live under one roof and can all claim single mother benefits if they have kids.

I've checked the pension cards and drivers licenses of mossie families, one male four women, all at the same address.

My friends working in the RTA have also reported the same.

The rare mossie, ashamed of her co religionists have told me exactly how they do it.

If someone wishes to have more than one partner, that's fine by me as long as all parties consent and support any resulting offspring themselves. But not subsidized by the taxpayer to (in)breed dozens of little mossies.

Further reading go to Kreepy Keysar's website...

http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/polyg.htm

Jeremy-I didn't criticise the west, but christianity. As happy as I am about there being a separation between religion and the secular state, I still acknowledge that separation is only as strong as there are dissenters to that religious view among its population-otherwise you have at least temporary de facto religious law.

Nor do I criticise a religious law provided it's fair, and upholds both the well-being and integrity of society. There are many fair and worthwhile laws in both Christianity and Islam.

While many criticise Moslems crying 'Jihad' against the West, I'm equally horrified to be a member of an allied country of a President who cries 'Crusade' (a Christian concept), calls others 'evil' (the language of the Church) and expects everyone to agree that such a person therefore has no rights, including detention without charge or trial, torture (as approved by Rumsfeld), and the suspension of the Geneva Convention for 'enemy combatants'.

Any religion that condemns others to hell, calls them evil-doers, and consistently exhorts its followers to not speak or mix with people who don't share their faith (both Christianity and Islam have this in their holy teachings) is a faith that's dangerous to society as a whole.

I'm tired of Christians who think they're good solely on the basis they say they believe in God, believing that exempts them from any need to be civil and caring to others, villifying others solely on the basis they don't believe. Even to the extent they attack them without provocation in their own countries, torture them in their prisons, etc., then say they're only evil moslems so who cares.

As a person who would advocate toleration, I ask this: Does the advocater of tolerance tolerate intolerance? Or does the advocator speak out against intolerance?

I choose to speak out against it. I choose to speak out against anyone, any state and any religion that advocates the abuse of our fellow human beings.

I have Christian Martin Ibn Wariq, Numbat, Mickijo and Redneck saying they don't believe in the Bible-Redneck says most Christians don't. If you don't want to follow the Bible then why believe in its religion?

What is this belief that is a non-belief? Why be a member of any group espousing beliefs you object to? Especially when that group insists their beliefs are the Word of God himself and every word in the Bible is to be believed (Dei Verbum)

You break the laws/rules/advocations of your own religion that are supposed to save you from Hell. That's hypocritical. Why can't you understand there are some Muslims who feel the same way about the Koran? That you don't understand that's also hypocritical.

Numbat, how about discussing intelligently and maybe even supplying some relevant quotes and some interesting links to support your objections? Do you really think all you need to win an argument is to be as insulting and as uninformative as you can? Poor Numbat.

BD-you quoted the wrong bit.

1TIM5:11-13 But refuse younger widows, for when they have grown wanton against Christ, they desire to marry;having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge.Besides, they also learn to be idle, going about from house to house. Not only idle, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not.

That's abusive. They're condemned if they remarry and not supported by the church if they don't and are reviled simply because they're young widows. The elderly have to be so spotless in character it is a joke. It reeks of condemnation of most widows.

An admission from BD he wants dictatorships! It was people bravely standing up to dictatorship that brought us (pagan)democracy and broke the back on the (christian)'Divine Right of Kings'. People therefore with anti-Christian/pro-pagan attitudes.

The Renaissance, a rebirth of pagan thought through a return to ancient classical literature and the literature of the Arabs, brought about the rebirth of science, mathematics and the development of Humanism outside the christian church-more important than the Reformation for the basis of christian disbelief in the bible today.

Dear Aziliz..

You are trying pretty hard.. so I'll give you a tick for that.
But some things you say wreak of 'trying to score a point no matter what the cost'.

Example is 'BD wants dictatorships' ERR.. hardly.
I'm just making observations about politics. I wont rehash that bit.

On the young widows, keep this in mind

1/ Paul is still speaking about a support registry/list. Young women should be able to fit into a more productive situation than older ones, this would be in the context of the extended family.

2/ Paul is speaking about condemnation due to 'promiscuous' behavior.
He says in the next breath "14So I counsel younger widows to MARRY, to have children," so the kind of 'condemnation' he speaks of is not the eternal kind, I think its more of a concession to our human frailty. Please read the REST of the chapter to gain a full understanding of the position and responsibilities of the Church in regard to 'widows' it shapes up pretty well actually.

ROBERT
Polygamy.. never brought happiness to the Old Testament patriarchs, it just brought lots of children.

Common sense tells us that a woman who knows her husband is 'obsessed' with a younger woman would be heartbroken. Life for her would be an ongoing pain, and I can never imagine she would EVER in her heart accept a 25% attention from a man, because if he has 4 wives he MUST NOT give her more than 25% of his time.

The crazy thing is, Mohammed had a 'FAVORITE' wife.. the young one,
Ayesha. Now what is the point of claiming revelation from God that you should treat and love all your wives fairly, and then NOT do it yourself ?

Regarding your other point. (and one of Aziliz also) Gods righteous standard is 100% perfect. Hence Jesus words about 'thoughts'=Adultery.
We CANNOT be righteous in Gods eyes, because we sin. Only IN CHRIST can we be acceptable to God.

Aziliz.. are you paying attention ?
"we" are not 'good'...CHRIST is good

Aziliz,

U wrote: "I didn't criticise the west, but christianity."

You're a liar.

U wrote: "... separation between religion and the secular state...."

This statement is illogical. Religious and secular states are like ONE and ZERO. It's one or the other. 'separation' is not the right word.

U wrote: "Nor do I criticise a religious law provided it's fair..."

This statement is futile. (I see, you do not criticise a law which is fair)

U wrote: "... There are many fair and worthwhile laws ..."

This is completely pointless. Do you suppose anyone will challenge such a rhetorical statement?

U wrote: "... a President who cries 'Crusade'.... detention without charge... torture... and the suspension of the Geneva Convention..."

This is none other than a biased political accusation, wildly exaggerated music to the ears of Bush's enemies. Such accusation is ALWAYS regarded as '100% factual' to them without any regard for fair analysis. Hence you are not credible as a fair-minded person.

U wrote: "Any religion that condemns others to hell...is a faith that's dangerous to society..."

What society? This is another rubbish statement from you who claims to be fair-minded (by attacking Christianity and Islam in the same breath). The truth is, if Islam is indeed a true religion of God, then all societies ought to accept Islam in its totality. Islamic states do not regard Islam as a danger to their societies. Likewise, a 'christian' nation would not regard Christianity as dangerous to its society. It's only when non-Muslims who regard Islam as a religion of evil and hoax are confronted with Muslims (who believe Islam's way of life must prevail above all others) that makes Islam a dangerous threat to our SECULAR society.

You have ranted incessantly with impunity in a manner that makes it difficult for others to figure you out.

I don't need to go through your entire posts to pick out lots of holes in your argument.

Next time make sure you're FOCUSED on your discussion. EVERY statement carefully thought through before posting.

To me, you rants are so far lacking in logic and credibility.