1
   

TERRORISM IN THE BIBLE

 
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 12:20 am
What about Mary, Jesus' Mother peace be upon both of them? How old was she when she got pregnant?

Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind, in non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been "BETHROED" to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was "BETHROED" to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the "Holy Ghost" of the Bible, that "Impregnated" Mary as a "Rapist" or "Adulterer".

This paragraph was sent to me by brother Mike, who embraced Islam recently; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him: According to the Priest of Saint Mary's Catholic Church: "Mary was approximately 14 years old when she got pregnant with Jesus. Joseph, Mary's Husband is believed to be around 36. Mary was only 13 when she married Joseph. When she first was arranged with Joseph she was between 7 to 9 years old."

According to the "Oxford Dictionary Bible" commentary, Mary (peace be upon her) was was 12 years old when she became impregnated.

So if I want to be as silly and ridiculous as many of the Christians, I would respond to them by saying that Mary was psychologically and emotionally devastated for getting pregnant at a very young age. And speaking of "child molesting", since most Christians believe that Jesus is the Creator of this universe, then why did GOD allow himself to enter life through a 12-year old young girl's vagina? Please note that we Muslims love and respect Allah Almighty, Mary, Jesus and Allah's Message to the People of the Book (The Jews and Christians). In other words, we Muslims would never make fun of Christianity through such childish topic like this one as many ridiculous Christians do make fun of Islam through our Prophet's (peace be upon him) marriage.
0 Replies
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 12:24 am
What about the X-Rated Pornography in the Bible?

When we read the Bible, we learn about some weird pornographic teachings that are certainly not appropriate for anyone with morals to read. Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible to see the many pornographic verses in the Bible. You will read for instance, about Solomon's wife's vagina tastes like wine for him!

You will also see examples of Prophets sleeping with their neighbor's wives, such as the following:

David watches a women bathe, likes what he sees, and "goes in unto her." Let us look at 2 Samuel 11:2-4 "One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, 'Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home." This Holy Figure in the Bible is a pervert!.

So what happened to "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:10)"????

How come Leviticus 20:10 was compromised in the Bible and was never applied to King David?! Didn't King David know about this law? Yet, the Jews use his star as their holy symbol; the David Star, and the Christians call Jesus his son; "Son of David".

It seems to me quite clearly that the Bible is nothing but a compromised corrupted Book as Jeremiah 8:8, 2 Samuel 11:2-4 and Leviticus 20:10 suggest.

If the strong eats the weak in the Bible, then what moral and wisdom are we to learn from this book?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:08 am
A paedophile is a paedophile because he/she likes to have sex with children.
You just can't rationalize that away.
0 Replies
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 02:08 am
Doktor S wrote:
A paedophile is a paedophile because he/she likes to have sex with children.
You just can't rationalize that away.



i proved my points, if you care not to care, then thats good for you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 02:29 am
Re: TERRORISM IN THE BIBLE
ali87 wrote:
real life wrote:
ali87 wrote:
real life wrote:
ali87 wrote:
real life wrote:
ali87 wrote:


Shutting the loud mouths of those who unjustly attack Islam, with Truth.


Too bad you weren't around to shut Mohammed's mouth before he said "I do," and married a six year old girl.




MY RESPONSE:

Aisha was 6 years old when her parents pledged her to be married to prophet Mohammad, she never entered Mohammad's house until she became mature at the age of 9 NOT 6.(A GIRL IS CONSIDERED MATURE WHEN SHE HAS HER FIRST MENSTURATION). Back then and even now in Arabia because of the hot climate girls matured early, take for example a 9 year old Eskimo girl, and compare her to a 9 year old North African girl, or an Arabian girl, you will see a major difference. So Aisha being 9 would've looked like a 15 year old Eskimo girl. In hotter climates girls sexual body parts mature earlier than that of girls in colder climates that is why you see Middle Eastern teenage guys growing facial hair at an early age. Also girls mature earlier than guys, both mentally and physically. And back then not only in Arabia but almost all over the world girls were wed at a young age. Aisha became mature when she entered Prophet Mohammad's house as his official wife at the age of 9, AGAIN NOT 6. Also the life expectancy for men was around 40 50 years, and in pre-Islamic Arabia it was even shorter, because of the constant wars between different tribes. Many men died at wars and didn't even make it to their late 30's leaving their wives and daughters behind..........

So to say Prophet Mohammad was a pedophile is completely absurd, because all men married young girls back then almost all over the world, and it was the mentality back then, so to call him a pedophile would be to call every single man a pedophile back then!


Ali,

Oh, so 'everyone was doing it........' that makes it okay?

If your kids tell you 'everyone is doing it....' are you going to let them have what they ask? How absurd.

You want your kids, I would assume, to grow up to be holy and pure individuals, not followers of the crowd, right?

Just because a female or male has entered puberty does not mean they are ready for the responsibility of marriage and family, does it? Let's not be ridiculous.

Do not try to justify marriage at this early age by telling me 'everyone was doing it...' or 'well, she may have menstruated'

I expect genuine, thinking responses from you, not lame excuses for inexcusable behavior. If you truly reverence God, you cannot excuse the irresponsible misuse of marriage.



I NEVER SAID "EVERYONE WAS DOING IT" I SAID THAT WAS THE "MENTALITY" BACK THEN..................


Yeah, you did.

ali87 wrote:
.....because all men married young girls back then........


ali87 wrote:
.....so to call him a pedophile would be to call every single man a pedophile back then.......


Do men marry 6 year old girls today in the Islamic countries, and do you consider it justifiable?

Or maybe a better question, what is the YOUNGEST age that you, as a Muslim, consider it proper for a young girl to marry, (thus assuming the possible responsibility of raising children)?




UR MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THAT THEY HAD SEX WHEN SHE WAS 6, REMEMBER SHE WAS 9 WHEN SHE SHE ENTERED HIS HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN SHE BECAME MATURE AT THE AGE OF 9 NOT 6. YOURE GIVING THE READER THE IMPLICATION THAT THEY SLEPT TOGETHER WHEN SHE WAS 6, UR INDEED A JERK.


NOW LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, AND THEN ILL ANSWER YOURS

if you had a younger sister, who was not obviously nine, because when you compare a 9 year old then, to a 9 year old now, ull see that a 9 year old girl now is not suitable for marrige, because she has not gone through puberty yet. but if u had a sister who was 14 or 15, and she was going through puberty (and as you know both boys and girls sexual desires are at the highest in puberty, that theyre weak to fall into temptation) and no matter how religous you are and how much you talk to your sister and how much your parents talk to her, there still will be that day when shes gonna go to a party with her friends without you knowing, and very well she might be tempted into fornication with another guy, so young marrige stands to be justified if the girl has gone through her puberty, and looks mature. would you want your sister to experience with diferent guys, and to let different guys touch her, and then wed her? or would you rather wed her with one man, and whatever she does is with him and him only. look at how many teenage mothers we have today, look at how many teengaers we have with STDs you want your sister to get AIDS? cuz like i said theres alway that posibility that she will be tempted into fornication. thats wats wrong with the corrupt system today, but obviously the age 9 is not acceptble in todays world, because its not the "mentality" like its the mentality to idiol worship jesus as god. so me personally i wouldnt wed my 9 year old sister because shes too young and hasnt gone through puberty, but if the law allowed it i would happily wed my 15 year old sister or daughter. again a 9 year old girl then is equivelant to a 14 or 15 year old girl now.


No I would not let a daughter wed at 15 years old. A young lady of 15 is not ready to be a proper mother or wife.

And I would not let her go to a party and fornicate at 15 either.

You make it seem as if either she should wed young or she will be promiscuous. No other choice?

How about teaching young ladies self control? How about teaching the young men the same thing so they are not looking for sex at 15?

Don't both you and I want the same thing for our children? We want our daughters AND our sons to be pure and holy, and to wait until marriage before having sexual relations, correct?
0 Replies
 
ali87
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 03:19 am
yes you have a very good point, but about the other choices, i already mentuioned it, i already mentioned that even if u teach them, at that age their sexual desires are very high, so no matter how much you teach them, theres still a chance....

would you rather risk, or wed her when shes mature? and if the girl is 15 but if her sexual parts are matured and also mentaly mature, then theres nothing wrong with it, ive seen many 15 year old girls that looked 20, and also remember that girls mature earlier than guys do.

and if that system is better than that of what i mentioned, then why is it that we see millions of teenagers commiting fornication and having babies, getting STDs and AIDS?

because not all parents would be as good as you, but if they wed their daughters and sons early and if there was severe punishment for adultery then we wouldnt have this problem today.


imagine if all the rapists were put to death, dont you think we wouldve had alot less rapes? dont you think rapists or adulterers wouldve been afraid of commiting sin?


dont you think we wouldve had alot less AIDS victems?

and alot less single teenage mothers with basterdized children?

think about it, and id love to hear back
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:06 am
ali87 wrote:
yes you have a very good point, but about the other choices, i already mentuioned it, i already mentioned that even if u teach them, at that age their sexual desires are very high, so no matter how much you teach them, theres still a chance....

would you rather risk, or wed her when shes mature? and if the girl is 15 but if her sexual parts are matured and also mentaly mature, then theres nothing wrong with it, ive seen many 15 year old girls that looked 20, and also remember that girls mature earlier than guys do.

and if that system is better than that of what i mentioned, then why is it that we see millions of teenagers commiting fornication and having babies, getting STDs and AIDS?

because not all parents would be as good as you, but if they wed their daughters and sons early and if there was severe punishment for adultery then we wouldnt have this problem today.


imagine if all the rapists were put to death, dont you think we wouldve had alot less rapes? dont you think rapists or adulterers wouldve been afraid of commiting sin?


dont you think we wouldve had alot less AIDS victems?

and alot less single teenage mothers with basterdized children?

think about it, and id love to hear back


You keep focusing in on how mature a young woman's body is at an early age.

But it takes more than a body that's made it through puberty to make a wife and mother. Maturity, judgement, wisdom that come with time are very necessary for a happy and fulfilled marriage (not just sexual gratification) and successful raising of children.

I can't speak for your manner of raising children, but the party scenario with the girl committing sin is easily avoided. You don't let your young ladies OR your young men go to such places unchaperoned. It's pretty basic.

(Regarding rape, I don't know that I am in favor of the death penalty for it, but am certainly in favor of starting with minimum mandatory 20 years and we can work upward from there if need be and the case warrants it.)
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:16 am
20 years for all rape? Bit harsh. Some rapes don't even deserve prison sentences.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:17 am
Shocked
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:23 am
What if you're an 18 year old girl in Wisconsin and you "meet" a 19 year old boy...who turns out to be only 17

How long should she go to prison for?....or should we stick to the death sentence?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:25 am
Whew! Scared me there for a minute, Eorl. No in your scenario no jail time.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:26 am
Yeah... but that's the problem with mandatory sentences....no room for common sense.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:27 am
Then the laws need to be changed to include common sense. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 12:15 am
Mandatory sentences do tend to remove a judge's ability to use 'judgement'.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 10:34 pm
In context, I believe he was referring to forcible rape, not statutory.

However, are you saying that the age of consent in Wisconsin is 18? I rather doubt it, but am willing to be proven wrong.

Maybe we should ask our favorite Wisconsin resident. So how 'bout it? Whatcha know, bird?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 11:17 pm
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

So now you mean only certain kinds of rape should have mandatory 20 years?

That's the funny thing about mandatory sentences. Doesn't take long to realise that it removes a judges ability to judge...and justice goes out the window....but they sure are popular with the voters ('cause the voters know better)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 11:42 pm
I think forcible rape should carry a mandatory minimum of 20 years, yes.

Nothing wrong with mandatory sentences, since many 'judges' are little more than political hacks who do not necessarily show any 'ability to judge' other than they have judged correctly who to befriend in order to get an appointment.

Everybody else in the criminal justice system including police, prosecutors , etc have mandatory guidelines governing their behavior and detailing what they can and cannot do. I see no problem with judges not being given carte blance and having some rules that they must follow as well.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:27 am
real life understands the finer points of justice and it's fair administration better than a judge? The amount of stuff you are sure about amazes (and disturbs) me.

I guess in my country we have more respect for our judges, probably because we don't vote for them.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 09:29 am
Eorl,

I doubt that Real Life is speaking of all judges in our judicial system. But, there are many, and I do mean many that do not seem to have the ability to to actually "judge". What do you think of the judge who recently handed down needlepoint as the punishment for a convicted (and I do believe) repeated child molestor? There are plenty more instances that can be pointed out.

It may not be the norm as of yet, but these instances certainly are starting to increase in numbers.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 11:58 pm
Hi Momma Angel,

Good to hear from you.

Yes, it's common sense to folks like you and me that nobody in the criminal justice system (not judges, not police, not prosecutors) should be given unfettered power without accountability and without guidelines within which to use it.

It would seem like a concept that most any could understand, but perhaps I expect too much from Eorl.

After all, I'm just a harmless, lovable little fuzzball and maybe I should just be content with that. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 02:09:24