The Religion of Peace murders another cartoonist

[aris2chat]

You really can't make those judgements OUTSIDE the culture of the times. Marriage was young and so was death and was across the cultures. Is Joseph a pedophile - an old man marrying a 12 yr old? In addition, there is considerable controversy over Aisha's age. The pedo accusation only started after 9/11. Gee I wonder why?

1. Yes I can make those judgments. Pedophilia is sick and evil in every age and full grown woman have always been available.

Explain then, why the arranged marriage of children was the norm in that era and why the marriages were typically consumated when menses occurred?

2. Only started after 9/11? You're seriously going to make that claim?

Not kidding. I never heard references like that before - it's a modern phenemon.

[quote[
3. There's no controversy about the fact that Pedo-mmad married her at 6 and deflowered her at 9. Or that it was a Jewish concubine that finally killed him. No wonder he preferred little lolitas. They couldn't defend themselves like grown women.

4. You Leftists will clearly favor sick, evil Islam over feminism which, let's face it, is SOOO 1990's.

Except all of Mohammeds other wives were older women.

Because women were property. It's also why Lot offered his virgin daughters to the homos trying to break down his door. It's still wrong. Cultural context does not possess the power to turn wrong into right or........Ta Da! Slavery was A-OK!

Back then, slavery was...to everyone. Except the slaves of course.

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

Legal, acceptable and even part of the bible. We evolved in our attitudes, but it was not an easy change, even a violent one. Women and slaves were property in the west. You judge others by what has only been changed in the last century here. Took the west more than 2000 yrs, Islam has only had 1400 yrs.
Much has been changed or changing, but unless you actually want to understand you will never bother to learn and always see them through cracked glasses of hate. You see only a small part because of the news, not the reality of the world and people. You see only from a narrow western christian perceptive not a global rational one.

 

[Coyote]

1. Yes I can make those judgments. Pedophilia is sick and evil in every age and full grown woman have always been available.

Explain then, why the arranged marriage of children was the norm in that era and why the marriages were typically consumated when menses occurred?

2. Only started after 9/11? You're seriously going to make that claim?

Not kidding. I never heard references like that before - it's a modern phenemon.

[quote[
3. There's no controversy about the fact that Pedo-mmad married her at 6 and deflowered her at 9. Or that it was a Jewish concubine that finally killed him. No wonder he preferred little lolitas. They couldn't defend themselves like grown women.

4. You Leftists will clearly favor sick, evil Islam over feminism which, let's face it, is SOOO 1990's.

Except all of Mohammeds other wives were older women.

Because women were property. It's also why Lot offered his virgin daughters to the homos trying to break down his door. It's still wrong. Cultural context does not possess the power to turn wrong into right or........Ta Da! Slavery was A-OK!

Back then, slavery was...to everyone. Except the slaves of course.

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

Legal, acceptable and even part of the bible. We evolved in our attitudes, but it was not an easy change, even a violent one. Women and slaves were property in the west. You judge others by what has only been changed in the last century here. Took the west more than 2000 yrs, Islam has only had 1400 yrs.
Much has been changed or changing, but unless you actually want to understand you will never bother to learn and always see them through cracked glasses of hate. You see only a small part because of the news, not the reality of the world and people. You see only from a narrow western christian perceptive not a global rational one.

That is too often a problem with us

One thing I find enlightening - is listening to programs on NPR, like PRI The World etc. It brings in news and voices and interviews from all over. It adds a bit of perspective.

 

[aris2chat]

There is myth and reality surrounding figures like Jesus, Mary, Mohammed and Aisha....and when you are talking about events that occurred over a thousand, two thousand years, there is a lot of stuff that gets mythologized long after the participants have gone. None of them were literate biographers of their own lives.

Shiite believe Aisha was at least 18 when she married, the don't use all the hadiths that Sunni do.

 

[aris2chat]

back then even among christians it was not rape. Lionheart's wife was only six. Most of his female relatives were barely 12 or married to children.

You condemn muslims but not christians?

Now we frown on child marriage but It's been common for centuries, even in asia and africa today

I don't care what century you live in, a girl is a girl and a woman is a woman. If any man goes after girls, they are pedophiles, pathetic pieces of shit who can't hack it with a real live woman mature enough to see through his bullshit and hold him to a higher standard. A grown ass man has no business being with a kid no matter what the time or culture.

You really can't make those judgements OUTSIDE the culture of the times. Marriage was young and so was death and was across the cultures. Is Joseph a pedophile - an old man marrying a 12 yr old? In addition, there is considerable controversy over Aisha's age. The pedo accusation only started after 9/11. Gee I wonder why?

1. Yes I can make those judgments. Pedophilia is sick and evil in every age and full grown woman have always been available.

Explain then, why the arranged marriage of children was the norm in that era and why the marriages were typically consumated when menses occurred?

2. Only started after 9/11? You're seriously going to make that claim?

Not kidding. I never heard references like that before - it's a modern phenemon.

[quote[
3. There's no controversy about the fact that Pedo-mmad married her at 6 and deflowered her at 9. Or that it was a Jewish concubine that finally killed him. No wonder he preferred little lolitas. They couldn't defend themselves like grown women.

4. You Leftists will clearly favor sick, evil Islam over feminism which, let's face it, is SOOO 1990's.

Except all of Mohammeds other wives were older women.

Because women were property. It's also why Lot offered his virgin daughters to the homos trying to break down his door. It's still wrong. Cultural context does not possess the power to turn wrong into right or........Ta Da! Slavery was A-OK![/QUOTE]

For Lot, the honor of protecting a guest was more important that the honor or his daughters. Then the got him him drug and basically raped their own father.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Except all of Mohammeds other wives were older women.

Because women were property. It's also why Lot offered his virgin daughters to the homos trying to break down his door. It's still wrong. Cultural context does not possess the power to turn wrong into right or........Ta Da! Slavery was A-OK!

Back then, slavery was...to everyone. Except the slaves of course.

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't care what century you live in, a girl is a girl and a woman is a woman. If any man goes after girls, they are pedophiles, pathetic pieces of shit who can't hack it with a real live woman mature enough to see through his bullshit and hold him to a higher standard. A grown ass man has no business being with a kid no matter what the time or culture.

You really can't make those judgements OUTSIDE the culture of the times. Marriage was young and so was death and was across the cultures. Is Joseph a pedophile - an old man marrying a 12 yr old? In addition, there is considerable controversy over Aisha's age. The pedo accusation only started after 9/11. Gee I wonder why?

1. Yes I can make those judgments. Pedophilia is sick and evil in every age and full grown woman have always been available.

Explain then, why the arranged marriage of children was the norm in that era and why the marriages were typically consumated when menses occurred?

2. Only started after 9/11? You're seriously going to make that claim?

Not kidding. I never heard references like that before - it's a modern phenemon.

[quote[
3. There's no controversy about the fact that Pedo-mmad married her at 6 and deflowered her at 9. Or that it was a Jewish concubine that finally killed him. No wonder he preferred little lolitas. They couldn't defend themselves like grown women.

4. You Leftists will clearly favor sick, evil Islam over feminism which, let's face it, is SOOO 1990's.

Except all of Mohammeds other wives were older women.

Because women were property. It's also why Lot offered his virgin daughters to the homos trying to break down his door. It's still wrong. Cultural context does not possess the power to turn wrong into right or........Ta Da! Slavery was A-OK!

For Lot, the honor of protecting a guest was more important that the honor or his daughters. Then the got him him drug and basically raped their own father.[/QUOTE]
I think you have rape on the brain; you see it everywhere, except where it's actually happening, such as when an adult man inserts his monsterously huge phallus into the premature vagina of a little girl who should be playing with dolls, porcelain ponies, and tea party sets.

And clearly you're ok with it.

 

[Coyote]

Back then, slavery was...to everyone. Except the slaves of course.

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

If that is the case then why is it children have no conscience before a certain age, and particularly as it relates to abstract concepts?

 

[aris2chat]

Back then, slavery was...to everyone. Except the slaves of course.

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

The fewer our wants the more we resemble the Gods. ~Socrates

not the same as being made in he image of god

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

If that is the case then why is it children have no conscience before a certain age, and particularly as it relates to abstract concepts?

My children started having empathy at the age of 2. They understood the Golden Rule by 3. What children don't possess and it's the reason they're held to a different legal standard, is the ability to foresee the long term consequences of their actions.(what you call abstract concepts) That comes with time.

 

[aris2chat]

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

If that is the case then why is it children have no conscience before a certain age, and particularly as it relates to abstract concepts?

Conscience begins around 3-4 yrs of age

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Which makes my point. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Slavery and treating women like property has ALWAYS been wrong, no matter the time or culture.

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

The fewer our wants the more we resemble the Gods. ~Socrates

not the same as being made in he image of god

His society was not monotheistic, but the concept of divine endowment he believed in very strongly. I've read his works. You quote him like a brainless Philistine. Big difference.

 

[aris2chat]

That kind of get's into a philosophical debate doesn't it? If it's always been wrong but people back then did not know it was wrong then how can they be blamed? Keep in mind - the primary religious books of the time condone slavery and the low status of women.

It's called a conscience. Just because entire societies ignored their inner Jiminy Crickets doesn't mean they didn't know they were doing wrong. How is it that through protest and martyrdom, Christians were able to turn society against the barbaric gladiator events unless people had a conscience? It's this conscience referred to in Romans 1 that condemns people even without the written law.

And historical books are meaningless unless wedded to righteous intent. Pro slavery and abolitionist congregations read from the same Bible and found justification from it. But even Abraham Lincoln remarked, how can God be for and against something? Jesus didn't leave his church in the care of a book that could be interpreted according to every impious whim of man, he left a living, breathing CHURCH led by the Holy Spirit. Books lack the power to change a corrupted conscience.

But what is conscience developed by? We aren't born with it - it's something we learn.

Not true. Imago Dei is a belief so profound that every world religion teaches it and 95% believe it. It's the divine spark that separated us from the beasts that makes us capable of philosophy, empathy, and reason. We are well equipped right from birth to know right from wrong.

Socrates certainly believed this and taught his students so. He lived before Christ and though he was a contemporary of the Jews, he was a gentile, unaccustomed to Jewish law. Yet his piety could rival the greatest of saints and his belief that his eternal soul would live on was made evident by his sacrifice to preserve the truth.

Our conscience is a construct of nature, not nurture, or nobody would ever defy commonly accepted evil in their day, so certain that what they feel is right overrides everything they were taught.

If that is the case then why is it children have no conscience before a certain age, and particularly as it relates to abstract concepts?

My children started having empathy at the age of 2. They understood the Golden Rule by 3. What children don't possess and it's the reason they're held to a different legal standard, is the ability to foresee the long term consequences of their actions.(what you call abstract concepts) That comes with time.

imitation, empathy and conscience are not the same

 

[Coyote]

Empathy - something that is needed for conscience I think - is only a potential in children. If someone doesn't actively develop it, by nurture and teaching - it may never develop. Conscience is more complicated because it includes cultural rules of right and wrong.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Empathy - something that is needed for conscience I think - is only a potential in children. If someone doesn't actively develop it, by nurture and teaching - it may never develop. Conscience is more complicated because it includes cultural rules of right and wrong.

Not really. It can be so simple as feeling sorry for hurting someone. Empathy is so basic that even some animals are capable of it. It doesn't require an advanced understanding of social taboos.

 

[Coyote]

Empathy - something that is needed for conscience I think - is only a potential in children. If someone doesn't actively develop it, by nurture and teaching - it may never develop. Conscience is more complicated because it includes cultural rules of right and wrong.

Not really. It can be so simple as feeling sorry for hurting someone. Empathy is so basic that even some animals are capable of it. It doesn't require an advanced understanding of social taboos.

That is why I separated out empathy as a precursor of conscience which is much more complex and taught, not inate. But empathy - if it isn't nurtured, may not develop, or at least that is what I've read.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Empathy - something that is needed for conscience I think - is only a potential in children. If someone doesn't actively develop it, by nurture and teaching - it may never develop. Conscience is more complicated because it includes cultural rules of right and wrong.

Not really. It can be so simple as feeling sorry for hurting someone. Empathy is so basic that even some animals are capable of it. It doesn't require an advanced understanding of social taboos.

That is why I separated out empathy as a precursor of conscience which is much more complex and taught, not inate. But empathy - if it isn't nurtured, may not develop, or at least that is what I've read.

On the Nature VS Nurture debate, both sides have powerful arguments. You might want to expand your familiarity to encompass the entire discussion. Much of what's written about emotional detachment syndrome which occurs when infants are not allowed to bond, seems to support the nurture side, but that's far from settled science as it can't be established that all children deprived of human contact develop sociopathy.

The argument that because empathy is taught, it cannot exist apart from such instruction is flawed in my opinion because no amount of water and nutrients can cause a plant to grow if there isn't first a seed. That's the other side of the argument and I find it compelling.

 

[aris2chat]

the bible approves of all those things and more

PurpleOwl is providing an excellent example for this discussion: The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

The Regressive Left display their Islamophobia - they are clearly afraid of this religion - in three primary ways:

1. Equate modern-day Christianity with modern-day Islam
2. Deflect to Christianity's history ("But the Crusades, the Crusades!")
3. Go directly to insults, attacks, straw men and distortions

aris2chat also provides an excellent example in post 73.

All this for a religion that treats women as second-class citizens, and gays far worse. More than a little hypocritical.
.

Christians of the west were abused by husbands till end of 20th C
Violence Against Women Act was only passed in 1994

Muslims world was more isolated at they are slower to catch up
They were well in advance on other rights of women in many countries. Liberal/conservative readings of the quran and hadith have varied back and forth and across countries. What most seem to view as islam is wahhabism, not even all sunnism.

Time to stop comparing apples and watermelons. How quickly hypocrites forget their own pass

Christians of the west were abused by husbands till end of 20th C. Violence Against Women Act was only passed in 1994
What are you talking about? When did the Church ever say it was Ok for men to beat their wives?

Muslims world was more isolated at they are slower to catch up
This is a total B.S. excuse, which is what Islam apologists specialize in, i.e. making excuses for all of Islam's sins.
Either Islam allows for this submissive treatment of women and the torture of infidels or it does not. It is not a question of "catching up" with the West.

They were well in advance on other rights of women in many countries. Liberal/conservative readings of the quran and hadith have varied back and forth and across countries. What most seem to view as islam is wahhabism, not even all sunnism.
Ah, bunk. It is almost across the board some of these ill treatment of others. Who is doing the genital mutilations of women, just the wahhabis? Who subjugates and oppresses their own people and their neighbors, just the wahhabis? Who thinks we are all going to hell and their suicide martyrs are going to paradise, just the wahhabis? Well if all those others are so peaceful and object to all this then why are they not doing something meaningful about it? Islam is a false religion, that's why.


Time to stop comparing apples and watermelons. How quickly hypocrites forget their own past.
You are the one doing an extremely false way of comparing virtues and sins between Islam and Christianity.

Spare the Rod – Spoil the Wife The Outrageous History of Wife Beating by Mirella Sichirollo Patzer

Christianity and domestic violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Battered Women’s Movement

Domestic Violence within the Church: The Ugly Truth

Christian views of Women - Mysogeny - Bad News About Christianity

Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence

How do christians not know their own bible, church history, or history in general?

 

[turzovka]

How do christians not know their own bible, church history, or history in general?

I refuse to take the time to comment on how middle ages and earlier ages dealt with domestic affairs and criminal matters. Of course the pagan world and the secular world were more barbaric and cruel and it was Christianity that actually brought dignity to a woman and assuaged methods of punishment or discipline. But that is all lost on you.

What I asked was where in the Bible does it permit men to beat their wives. Where in Catholic doctrine or canon law does it do so. I skimmed four of your links and none of them produced any of that. But if you are here to tell me it does then do so. Extract the passage from your articles, do not expect me to do all the reading looking for it.