More questions for Fellow_Human.

(Still waiting for your comments on my earlier posts)

How do you reconcile that Islam in 2007 is STILL allowing SLAVERY, women bitting, polygamy, and under age Marriages?

I am not talking about isolated tribal incidents - but by vertue of Islamic LAW.

How can you hope to incorporate these values AND ISLAMIC LAWS into Australia? by pretending they don't exist?

And the wait for real answers begins......

Boaz, you are one patronizing son-of-a-gun, aren't you?

>>YVONNE... at last.. well done.. almost.
THIS....time you actually backed up your 'hysteria' :) with some actual quotes and history... for this I totally applaud you!<<

If this is symptomatic of the way you treat your women-folk - apart from administering corporal punishment to your daughter, which we already know about - I feel even more sorry for them.

>>You linked 'incidental events' somehow to 'doctrinal position' and that...in hermeneutic terms is an absolute "NO-NO"... ya jest cayn't do it moit.<<

You carefully omit to justify this - rather sweeping - generalization. Which is rather unfair, considering the amount of evidence Yvonne chose to lay before you.

The first one I came across was God talking to Eve after the incident with the apple... "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

This is an "incidental event"?

I don't think so - there is an entire branch of your religion that has been fostered and nurtured on the basis of this "incidental event". This "original sin" thing is the cornerstone of the Catholic faith, and permeates every corner of its doctrine.

"Incidental event"? I don't think so.

>>I suppose Tertullian and Luther were children of their time...<<

I suppose they were. But if so, I suggest that all founders of religions were also "children of their time", and should not be measured against more recently acquired personal rectitude.

>>now.. if Luther and Tertullian missed those verses... it is not my problem:) but it IS theirs.<<

No, Boaz, it is your problem. You have deliberately "de-selected" these two commentators because they do not highlight "only the good bits", as you do.

It's just a matter of sauce, Boaz, equally distributed over goose and gander. You need to understand that your patronizing selectivity in what you choose to believe about your own religion, and everyone else's, is totally transparent.

And being so, is simple hypocrisy.

Boaz,

You shot yourself in the foot on theology again,
Islam came to a world where polygamy was the norm and women were treated as sub humans (specially in pagan Arabia). The teachings were powerful, direct and against everything that pagan arabs held dear which is another overwhelming argument why Islam can’t be man made as the man made stuff would like to compromise to gain social acceptance of its surrounds.

Compare that to the ‘no position’ on women right according to your scripture. It was then left to man-made theories which makes it harder and had to be influenced by the surrounds. This is why while most western nations have equal women rights legislated, you still got sects of Christianity (like the mormons) who marry up to 50 women (reseach biblical polygamy in South Dacota). You also got Orthodox Christianity like east Europe where women positions and right are few centuries behind.When women rights are in the core foundation (like Islam) its becomes easier to implement.

Coach,

Will repeat slowly.
Boaz conceded to a defeat on two topics: Slavery and Women rights in Islam (see Yvonne chats).

First, comparing scripture to scripture, if you read the Quran (muslims’claim to be God’s word), it commands its followers in a dozen of areas to free slaves (such as inability to fast, mentioning god’s name in vein, etc..)
Boaz accepted the fact that the bible tolerates or at least have no position on slavery.

Second, on the issue of women rights, the Quran have a full part on women rights (part 4, titled women) that commands women have rights to inherit, have an independent financial entity, can divorce their husbands (if he mistreats her or even if she stops loving him).
Your scripture have no references or mentioning of women let alone their rights. Women rights came later in the piece with secular (non-religious) reforms.
I will not comment on your “women biting” above, its husband wife secrets : - )

FH... I conceded 'defeat' ? good grief...if that's what you make of my posts, I better send you back to that Catholic school for some remedial education.

I am not in the slightest way conceding 'defeat' on issues already discussed. You must be reading or surfing some of those radical sites.

I hope someone will have a look at the 'Pablo Escobar' thread :) it has a very definite meaning. And you might see yourself there.

cheers

"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Jesus, Messiah and Lord.

Boazy, I know you love showing off your well thumbed bible and Qu’ran, in English translation I presume, with underlined quotes as ‘proof’ for your statements. At times I have well meaning persons at my front door doing the same thing. Some of my friends have felt the need to first, persuade me of the path of error of the Catholic Church, then to persuade me of their take on the end of the world. It was always too easy to refute.

When I was much younger I too had an underlined bible so I could go Mano a Mano with quotes to refute someone's interpretations. It was enormous fun at the time. If you cannot accept my arguments without 'proof' from scripture, so be it. I've been there, done that.

Now I declare myself Buddhist when I want to cut a tiresome display of quotes short.

You say Tertullian and Luther were children of their time. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al are children of our time.

Paul and Peter began with diminishing women. They were children of their Judaic upbringing. This trend continued to at least the beginning of last century.

Your reference to Aquila and Priscilla puzzles me as proof of the equal status of women. This is a husband and wife team.

Jesus Christ never made any statements that we know of that classified the status of women or slaves as less than men. But neither did he condemn the attitude of the times he lived in. He did not make unequivocal statements on the status of women or slaves.

If you say Christians through the ages have used this apparent ambiguity to misrepresent Christ’s teachings, I agree with you wholeheartedly. So does Mohammed, the Prophet who came after Him. He made definite pronouncements on the equal status of women before God and in society.

There is a certain arrogance in your response to Muslims that they all are erroneous in their understanding of their own faith and Holy Scriptures.

yvonne

I support you and FH because of your tolerance and accept the good things in Islam. With respect to Judaism it does not take the OT at completely face value but interprets it via several thousand years of scholarly thinking. Orthodox Jews look to the Talmud (Rabbinical interpretations) and Reform Jews to their own modern understanding.

Thus Judaism does not consider that stoning ever meant throwing rocks at people until they died, that is cruel and forbidden.

Trouble is that many Christians think that they can pass judgment on every other faith, interpreting these faiths in a way that makes Christianity sound better. I wish those people would stop and listen to the others.

As you all know, I am an agnostic, but see the importance in reaching a higher morality.