Emmmm something.

JaseBelleVie

No bacon, no alcohol, no music, no dancing, no pre-marital sex, joyless marital sex.

Hell yeah, where do I sign up?

Oh, and cutting your foreskin off. Forgot that.

The reasons to sign up just keep coming flying in, don't they? :P

Nodin

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

No bacon, no alcohol, no music, no dancing, no pre-marital sex, joyless marital sex.

Hell yeah, where do I sign up?

Oh, and cutting your foreskin off. Forgot that.

The reasons to sign up just keep coming flying in, don't they? :P

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

El_Duderino 09

Nodin wrote: »

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

volchitsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

I read the other poster (Nodin) as saying that the Muslim attitude to (married) sex is freer than the Catholic one. So what Benedict said wouldn't matter to them.

I'm actually replying because I think it's worth pointing out that the claim that Muslims have a "better" attitude to sex than Christians is only true for those of the male persuasion. It really isn't the case for women, who for example have to accept anything their husband wants, at any time. No question of rape within marriage if you're a Muslim woman, in fact beating a woman with a stick for refusing sex is perfectly acceptable, theologically. And then there's the tradition of FGM in many Muslim communities, which is accepted if not positively encouraged by some of the official teachings.

Nodin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Pope Bennie said anything that isn't P in the V, with procreation as the intended outcome, is sodomy. PS this is not a direct quote.

They don't resent people enjoying the act of procreation but anything that's not precreation is out. That's all of foreplay out the window.

O yeah "pleasure for pleasures sake" is apparently a complete no-no. Jaysus knows where they got the notion from either. Bears no relation to normal human interaction at all.

Alexis Sanchez

Nodin wrote: »

Actually once you tie the knot, ye can do more or less what ye want and enjoy it too (only exception is anal sex). Compared to strict catholic teaching, they're sex mad hippy deviants in that regard.

Aye, in some Muslim countries, you can even get it on with a child as long as you're married. Yet Nodin here gets upset when people attack Islam, despite Islam being the reason why child marriages are acceptable in some Muslim states.

Pawwed Rig

volchitsa wrote: »

No question of rape within marriage if you're a Muslim woman.

There was no rape within marriage here until relatively recently so we are not too far ahead of many of these countries.

volchitsa wrote: »

And then there's the tradition of FGM in many Muslim communities, which is accepted if not positively encouraged by some of the official teachings.

Not forgetting male genital mutilation.

Religion as a whole tends to look upon women as property and that is reflected by the practises of its advocates. Luckily here we are so ala carte with our religious beliefs that we just ignore some of the loony parts and get on with it.

El_Duderino 09

volchitsa wrote: »

I read the other poster (Nodin) as saying that the Muslim attitude to (married) sex is freer than the Catholic one. So what Benedict said wouldn't matter to them.

I didn't know that about muslims. It's fairly unlikely but there's no guessing what the religious will consider OK and what's a mortal sin.

Nodin

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Aye, in some Muslim countries, you can even get it on with a child as long as you're married. Yet Nodin here gets upset when people attack Islam, despite Islam being the reason why child marriages are acceptable in some Muslim states.

I get upset when people attack Islam? News to me.

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam. It also happens in non-Islamic cultures.

Alexis Sanchez

Nodin wrote: »

I get upset when people attack Islam? News to me.

Is it really? You accuse people of being Islamaphobes and criticizing people whom suggest that "Islam is evil". I've seen you, on several occasions, defend Islam.

Defending Muslims is fine because generalizations are the opinions of the stupid, but you get your knickers in a twist when people blame Islam for violence that is carried out by Muslims.

Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with Islamaphobia?

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam.

Did the Zoroastrians practice paedophilia? They were the dominant cult in the region, until Mohammad and his band of paedophile-sympathizers starting proselytizing their abhorrent beliefs across the Middle East. If Mohammad was killed, the Zoroastrians may still be the dominant cult in the region and therefore, child marriages wouldn't be so prevalent; although, the homophobia could still be practiced.

The fact is, Nodin, when a religion instructs ts followers to to do something that we, in the West, consider savage, there will always be heavily indoctrinated morons who will practice this in the real world; hence the reason why Islam is dangerous.

It also happens in non-Islamic cultures.

1. This is whataboutery. A fallacy you liberals frequently fall victim of when trying to defend Islam.

2. Paedophila occurring in non-Islamic countries/cultures does not negate it happening in Muslims countries/cultures.

3. Name a non-Muslim country where there is no age of marriage (marry at any age) or where the age of marriage is listed as "puberty"?

P.S.: Immigration from countries/cultures that practice child marriages, or ill-treatment of women in general, needs to be limited in the EU. The UK's Labour governments of the past have allowed in too many unskilled immigrants and that led to grooming gangs across the UK. The same will happen here if you Shinners get into power.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure anything except penis in vagina is sodomy. Oral, anal, digital and anything you could classify as foreplay is out. Why do people think sodomy is a synonym for anal?

Even the rcc's favourite, the rhythm method of "birth control" is out. Remember Onan was smitten by god for pulling out of his sister in law at the last second.

El_Duderino 09

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Even the rcc's favourite, the rhythm method of "birth control" is out. Remember Onan was smitten by god for pulling out of his sister in law at the last second.

I've always wondered about Onan. Was he smitten for spilling his seed or for disobeying gods direct order to get his sister in law pregnant? In that story it looks like a very specific case of disobeying a direct order so it's not a great time to infer a general principal about spilling seed.

Brian Shanahan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've always wondered about Onan. Was he smitten for spilling his seed or for disobeying gods direct order to get his sister in law pregnant? In that story it looks like a very specific case of disobeying a direct order so it's not a great time to infer a general principal about spilling seed.

He was told by god to get it on with her to begat a child, and that's what the punishment was for, spilling the seed stopped the begatting thus Onan was smitten.

Of course there is another possible reason for the smiting, and that is god was the kind of person who liked sitting in the corner and watching, all the while rubbing his palms off his thighs, and because Onan didn't give the full performance god was annoyed.

El_Duderino 09

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He was told by god to get it on with her to begat a child, and that's what the punishment was for, spilling the seed stopped the begatting thus Onan was smitten.

Of course there is another possible reason for the smiting, and that is god was the kind of person who liked sitting in the corner and watching, all the while rubbing his palms off his thighs, and because Onan didn't give the full performance god was annoyed.

Yeah I'd agree with that. It's sometimes used by religious folk as a prohibition on spilling seed anywhere except in the vagina such as in a condom or a tissue or anywhere else that can't cause pregnancy.

No to condoms and yes to natural contraception is a fairly mixed up message

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

You'll find the child marriage tends to go on where child marriage pre-dates islam as a cultural practice and is justified post facto with Islam.

Is there any evidence of that?

Only I know Hindus who claim that child marriage was pretty much unknown in ancient Hinduism, and only became accepted something over 1000 years ago, in direct response to the early Muslim invasions, as a way of protecting daughters form being taken as concubines, much as ISIS are now doing (and which they justify in exactly the same way, ie as being a Muslim practice from the very earliest times of Islam).

Hinduism being so ancient, it should be pretty easy to prove your claim if there is anything to it, since even if the practice is as old as Islam itself, that leaves at least 1000 years before that again, maybe more.

EDIT: I found this in Wikipedia (I've never actually checked this out before) :

Most religions, over history, influenced the marriageable age. For example, Christian ecclesiastical law forbade marriage of a girl before the age of puberty. Hindu vedic scriptures mandated the age of a girl's marriage to be adulthood which they defined as three years after the onset of puberty. Jewish scholars and rabbis strongly discouraged marriages before the onset of puberty. In contrast, some Islamic marriage practices have permitted marriage of girls below the age of 10, because Shariat law is based in part on the life and practices of Muhammad, the Prophet, as described in part in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The Prophet married Aisha, his third wife, when she was about age six, and consummated the marriage when she was about age nine.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

It seems to disprove your allegation.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Is there any evidence of that?

Only I know Hindus who claim that child marriage was pretty much unknown in ancient Hinduism, and only became accepted something over 1000 years ago, in direct response to the early Muslim invasions, as a way of protecting daughters form being taken as concubines, much as ISIS are now doing (and which they justify in exactly the same way, ie as being a Muslim practice from the very earliest times of Islam).

Hinduism being so ancient, it should be pretty easy to prove your claim if there is anything to it, since even if the practice is as old as Islam itself, that leaves at least 1000 years before that again, maybe more.

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Nodin

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

............

Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with Islamaphobia?
.

I disagree with it, and sectarianism generally.

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

............
Did the Zoroastrians practice paedophilia? They were the dominant cult in the region, until Mohammad and his band of paedophile-sympathizers starting proselytizing their abhorrent beliefs across the Middle East. If Mohammad was killed, the Zoroastrians may still be the dominant cult in the region and therefore, child marriages wouldn't be so prevalent; although, the homophobia could still be practiced.
.

You realise that the middle east is not the main area where child marriage is practiced.....? Doesn't suggest a bit of a hole in yer plot there, does it?

Alexis Sanchez wrote:

1. This is whataboutery. A fallacy you liberals ............

'........from the safety of your ivory towers.......'.

Alexis Sanchez wrote:

2. Paedophila occurring in non-Islamic countries/cultures does not negate it happening in Muslims countries/cultures.

I'm unaware that I, or anyone else stated that.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

The fact that some other countries may also practice child marriage doesn't make it any more acceptable for a particular religion to condone it, though, does it?

And if it's exact that any of the surrounding religions really began the practice as a result of Islam (even if that were only because they looked at it and thought it was a great idea to copy from them!) that would still, IMO, be evidence that there is a specific problem with Islam. Other countries and/or other religions may also now have a similar problem, but the religion(s) which condone it are (again IMO) a particular problem because of the unfortunate habit religions have of requiring that anything they teach be treated with respect just because it's religious.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Well it still goes on.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/

You'll note a few countries there that have never seen a muslim invasion....except perhaps described on a message board.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/where-does-it-happen/

Howeve, from your link, it's noticeable that if you look at the list of countries with the largest number of child marriages, countries with large Muslim populations are by far the greatest number.

Also, those lists are too vague : there is a huge difference between marrying off a prepubertal child of 8 or 10, and marrying at 15: both are bad for the child concerned, in terms of education etc - but only the first is actual child abuse.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that some other countries may also practice child marriage doesn't make it any more acceptable for a particular religion to condone it, though, does it?.

Not at all. It's no reason to pretend it's unique to them either though, as that's an assumption that could easily be made reading some people's posts.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if it's exact that any of the surrounding religions really began the practice as a result of Islam (even if that were only because they looked at it and thought it was a great idea to copy from them!) that would still, IMO, be evidence that there is a specific problem with Islam. Other countries and/or other religions may also now have a similar problem, but the religion(s) which condone it are (again IMO) a particular problem because of the unfortunate habit religions have of requiring that anything they teach be treated with respect just because it's religious.

That would not seem to be the case. There may be additional difficulties eradicating the practice where the Koran is cited as justification, but child marriage per se seems to be driven by other factors.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all. It's no reason to pretend it's unique to them either though, as that's an assumption that could easily be made reading some people's posts.

That would not seem to be the case. There may be additional difficulties eradicating the practice where the Koran is cited as justification, but child marriage per se seems to be driven by other factors.

We're a bit off topic, so this may not be the place, but I do see a particular problem where a religion actually condones a practice. Any religion, and any practice. Only the thing is, Islam does tend to have a worrying tendency to come up with official or semi-official justifications for various kinds of abuses that other religions are at worst, silent about. Wife beating is another one - name one other widespread religion that specifies what size of stick one may beat one's wife with?

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

We're a bit off topic, so this may not be the place, but I do see a particular problem where a religion actually condones a practice. Any religion, and any practice. Only the thing is, Islam does tend to have a worrying tendency to come up with official or semi-official justifications for various kinds of abuses that other religions are at worst, silent about. Wife beating is another one - name one other widespread religion that specifies what size of stick one may beat one's wife with?

No, but I'm fairly sure the Vedic scriptures somewhere advocate beating with a stick (or the hand, should you have left the stick at home, presumably). One of the Upanishads, I think.

It is indeed a very specific, legalistic sort of religion though, yes.

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

Howeve, from your link, it's noticeable that if you look at the list of countries with the largest number of child marriages, countries with large Muslim populations are by far the greatest number.

Also, those lists are too vague : there is a huge difference between marrying off a prepubertal child of 8 or 10, and marrying at 15: both are bad for the child concerned, in terms of education etc - but only the first is actual child abuse.

Indeed, however its notable that the "heartland" or area of origin of Islam is not present in that list. Again - other factors seem to be at play.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

No, but I'm fairly sure the Vedic scriptures somewhere advocate beating with a stick (or the hand, should you have left the stick at home, presumably). One of the Upanishads, I think.

It is indeed a very specific, legalistic sort of religion though, yes.

Well beyond my knowledge of Hinduism, but I'd suggest that this is either a valid point about Hinduism and wife beating, or the sort of unrelated oddity that exists with a religion that has existed for so long - like the ban on mixed threads in the bible for example. It all depends on whether that verse is actually quoted by any well-known Hindu teachers today as justification for wife beating or not.

Because we know that not only is the wife beating regularly justified using the Qu'ran, it's actually very controversial in Islam to claim that wife beating might not be justifiable.

volchitsa

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed, however its notable that the "heartland" or area of origin of Islam is not present in that list. Again - other factors seem to be at play.

I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I think you've just disproven your own point, because child marriage certainly does happen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, so if they don't appear in that link, it's the link that's unreliable.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/26/saudi-arabia-grand-mufti-nothing-wrong-with-child-brides/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/19/rights-group-lawfailingtoprotectchildbrides.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/saudi-arabia-child-brides-marriage

silverharp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJOeUuAZpA

shruikan2553

The creativity of the mod is a bit lacking from the title :P

Nodin

volchitsa wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I think you've just disproven your own point, because child marriage certainly does happen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen,...................

Where and when did I say they didn't? The link rates the most prolific offenders. Evidently these exist outside the middle east.

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

.................................

While such objectionable views doubtless exist, Memri are an unreliable source.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

While such objectionable views doubtless exist, Memri are an unreliable source.

Im sure it has a bias , but its still useful to hear the views being expressed in their middle East media as opposed to polished views made available to western media.

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure it has a bias , but its still useful to hear the views being expressed in their middle East media as opposed to polished views made available to western media.

.....as its a biased source its carefully selected alleged views being presented (free of charge, isn't that nice) to western media. Not much of an improvement.