If Mohammad was alive today, and had sex with a kid, would Muslims demand jail time?

Narrow intellect combined with intransigent belief. Do you equally vilify the ancient greeks - the fathers of western civilization? Do you condemn the Romans?

Nothing like cherry picking the group you wish to excoriate for certain behavior while completely ignoring the myriad of others engaged in exactly the same behavior.

Are you familiar with the term intellectual honesty?

 

would jehovah? would Yaweh?

Freedom in ignorance isn't really freedom. Might I suggest you seek to strike a balance between freedom, knowledge and understanding?

 

the twisted logic of this statement indicates the chasm between true understanding and idiotic hatred. "moral courge to condemn god?" now that is ripe.

A secular humanist doesn't condemn any god for NOT commanding something. Secular humanists UNDERSTAND that scriptures and commandments are man made, not god given.

 

so last century, when there was considerably more prejudice, was there less or more Islamic terrorism?

fast forward to the 21stC, Mooz hugging and tolerance etc. less or more terrorism?

 

These people NEED to be universally loathed. Sometimes that's what it takes to see change. The Japanese were universally loathed after WWII, and they are today probably the most peaceful and humane society on the planet.

 

This. The reason religion is a pox upon humanity. my bold.

 

It's all about what your hipster friends deem cool. It's cool to issue passes to exotics, so yeah.

 

Well we ponder that fascinating question I have a couple of other similar questions that I think that would be interesting to consider

If king Henry the eighth we're alive today, do you think the British people would object to him chopping off the heads of his wife and prosecute the king for that?

Another question, if Popes of Mohammed's time behaved as they did in Mohamed time but were transferred to today's time ....do you think that Catholics would object to that sort of behavior?


Inquiring minds want to know

 

What objectionable things did the Popes of the early 7th C. do?

Honorius I (625-63 was condemned as a heretic 40 years after his death, so Catholics are well experienced in condemning Popes. Heck, I see Catholics complaining about the Pope all the time.

But bad-mouthing Mohamed is a death sentence in many Muslim countries, as indeed it was in Mohamed's day. There really is no comparison

 

The problem is that many Muslims still adhere to those 7th C. norms.

 

http://www.thelistcafe.com/top-10-most-evil-popes

A pope basically endorsed the coquistadors and by extension their genocide

Really the list goes on and on even down to today where they have protected child molestesters. Or allowing the irish homes for unwed moms
Frankly i am surprised that you are either ynaware or maybe do not care

 

You asked about the Popes of Mo's time. The Popes you mentioned were much later.

 

It's more like something Woodrow Wilson would say - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vI4zvShxnM4/UGwt21wNhhI/AAAAAAAAJqg/4KoAlLguQ5o/s1600/woodrowwilson.jpg

 

According to Wiki =
"Women as witnesses[edit]
Traditionally, women are not generally permitted to serve as witnesses in an Orthodox Beit Din (rabbinical court), although they have recently been permitted to serve as toanot (advocates) in those courts. This limitation has exceptions which have required exploration under rabbinic law as the role of women in society and the obligations of religious groups under external civil law have been subject to increasing recent scrutiny."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Judaism

 

Your point is?

 

I don't have a point. I have a question.

I wondering what your point is about 7th C. Popes.

 

Point is that religious people throughout history have done lots of things that we consider to be very bad today In the case of Mohammed, I guess he was conforming to social convention at the time In the case of the popes I do not know if they conform to social convention of their time

But regardless, it is pretty silly to take a historical figure, remove this person from their historical and social context, then put them in a modern social context, and judge them based on the modern context

 

If Abraham Lincoln was alive today and wanted to send the blacks back to Africa and believed they were an inferior race would anybody regard him as a hero for civil rights? If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive today and owned black people as slaves would you support throwing them in prison?

 

Brw
What do we think about our own historical forefathers

. In the United States, as late as the 1880smost States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).

 

So, you are cool with the Inquisition, et. al.?

But my argument is that Mohamed is one of those rare individuals who created a new morality, created values. He created a historical and social context, he was not created by them.

It is perfectly acceptable to compare and contrast the civilizations spawned by these remarkable individuals.

Christians strive to imitate Christ. Muslims strive to imitate Mohamed. (Isis does and excellent job of doing the later, btw.)

Who do you think offers the better model?

 

No, are you

It is impossible not to be created by the moral and social context that surrounds you. This happened to Mohammed. This happened to Jesus also

You started out this thread by discussing Mohamed and children. Are you now claiming that whatever you said about Mohammed has subsequently shaped the Muslim society of today

I do not see the Christians of today as being particularly successful in imitating Christ

That is your opinion. It is not the opinion of the majority ....or even near the majority of Muslims

I think that whoever the Mormons imitate is the best model The Japanese and Chinese model seems pretty good too. Are they modeling Confucius or Buddha, I am not sure


One thing I am sure about, most Christians are not all that interested in turning the other cheek or valuing the poor and meek

 

Nope. You are taught the moral precepts. But you can reject them. Christ and Mo both announced new values and morals to guide people and they became very influential.

Which set of values do you prefer?

I didn't start this thread. I responded to your attempt to demonstrate a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

That may well be true. It is also true that most Muslims today are not successful at imitating Mo. If they were they would be participating in jihad.

Which group would you like to be more faithful to their founder?

But I didn't ask you who you think is best. I asked you to decide between Christ and the Prophet, seeing as how you brought up the comparison.

I can understand your eagerness to dodge this question. There is no good answer for you. If you say Christ it would stick in your craw. If you say the Prophet you know you are endorsing a 7th C. warlord.

 

In that way of looking at it everyone is free to choose whatever values they may like including Mohamed or Jesus

I'm A moral relativist, I do not believe that any fixed moral system .

OK well you don't agree
We are all expressing our own opinions here ....you have your opinion I have my opinion

I am not all that familiar with Mohammed or whatever morality he had or proposed And, by the way, the most limbs have modified whatever Mohammad set the same way Christians modified what Jesus said

In any case, To me it is clear that today is Christians have a little connection with Christ's morality whatever that was. And I see no reason that is going to change. So as far as I am concerned it's a completely theoretical question as to comparing Mohammed's morale do you versus Christ's morality

I am not interested in choosing either system Even on a hypothetical basis

OK, you've expressed your opinion and I can live with you expressing your opinion have a nice day[/quote]

 

Your tacit, indirect, defense of 7th century morality being applied today is somewhat appalling.

 

The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 7
I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap... Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
The Messenger of God saw 'A'ishah twice-[first when] it was said to him that she was his wife (she was six years old at that time), and later [when] he consummated his marriage with her after coming to Medina when she was nine years old.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
[The Prophet] married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwil. She was eighteen years old when he died.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
The Prophet married Aishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 171-173