Doubles standards

[JakeStarkey]

The adventurism overseas of European warlords in the Near East certainly did not meet the will of God.

The continual slaughters of native folks by the Crusaders in the name of Jesus revolts the conscience even til today.

 

[Avatar4321]

You dont see a problem with going to war over dust and rubble?

Hardly an accurate description of the crusades.

I guess you're not familiar with the campaign of Richard "The Lionheart" of England ot the Knights Templars ruthless acts. Or when Jerusalem were occupied by Christians the many innocent Jewish and Muslim occupants. If you have counter evidrnce please share it. I hardly call the crusades the will of God.

As I said, some of the actions of some of the crusaders were wrong. But the crusades themselves were a reactionary measure to the Islamic invasion. The Kingdoms of Europe were uniting together to keep them out and take back land that was lost. That in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Not only that, but it lead to a reemergence of the classic literature in Europe and got the bullies who were formerly picking on the people away doing something productive. It also helped Europeans see the things they could get from the east leading to exploration, renaissance, and reformation throughout Europe.

Without the Crusades, Europe might still be in the dark ages. So yes, I have no problem considering the fact that the crusades could have been the will of God despite the crusaders doing terrible things at times. See, God understands that people are weak and do bad things times, but He has a long term view of events, so He knows that despite some bad things happening at one point, a great number of good things can come from that.

 

[Againsheila]

I don't see a problem with the crusades, per se. It's the atrocious acts some of them did as crusaders that's the problem. But the crusades themselves were designed to defend Europe and liberate the Holy Land.

You dont see a problem with going to war over dust and rubble?

Hardly an accurate description of the crusades.

Most people don't know the real story behind the crusades and the fact that the Muslims took over half of Europe before Europe fought back and threw them out is completely missing from most history books. Also the fact that the Muslims threw the Christians out of Jerusalem, no longer allowing them to worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the place Christ is suppose to be buried...that's left out as well. I wish our schools would really teach history and not just pick and choose, or worse yet, make things up.

 

[Avatar4321]

You dont see a problem with going to war over dust and rubble?

Hardly an accurate description of the crusades.

Most people don't know the real story behind the crusades and the fact that the Muslims took over half of Europe before Europe fought back and threw them out is completely missing from most history books. Also the fact that the Muslims threw the Christians out of Jerusalem, no longer allowing them to worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the place Christ is suppose to be buried...that's left out as well. I wish our schools would really teach history and not just pick and choose, or worse yet, make things up.

Im pretty sure it's the place He wasnt buried

I wish people would stop being dependent on schools to learn and find a love for learning on their own as well.

 

[Againsheila]

Hardly an accurate description of the crusades.

Most people don't know the real story behind the crusades and the fact that the Muslims took over half of Europe before Europe fought back and threw them out is completely missing from most history books. Also the fact that the Muslims threw the Christians out of Jerusalem, no longer allowing them to worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the place Christ is suppose to be buried...that's left out as well. I wish our schools would really teach history and not just pick and choose, or worse yet, make things up.

Im pretty sure it's the place He wasnt buried

I wish people would stop being dependent on schools to learn and find a love for learning on their own as well.

It doesn't matter whether he was buried there or not. What matters is that's where they believe he is buried.

 

[Aristotle]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

 

[Againsheila]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very simple. Why do people discount Muhammad's relationship with a younger girl by labeling him a pedophile and not Joseph? Joseph was said to be in his 30's and and Mary (mother of Jesus) to be 13-14. Why do you guys talk about Muhammad and not Joseph who was such a desperate Jew he could only get a female that was between 13 and 14 years of age?

Said by whom?

 

[Aristotle]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Sorry, I believe you mean Lot had sex with his daughters. And my feeling is that this was the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah even after the fact... It appears that Noah's grandson viewed the nakedness of his drunken grandfather and/or made light of it...

 

[Againsheila]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Read a Bible. At least try to know what you are talking about before making yourself look like a fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Just curious, are the people that told you Noah had sex with his daughters the same ones that told you that Mary was 13?

 

[Aristotle]

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Read a Bible. At least try to know what you are talking about before making yourself look like a fool.

Ok maybe I mixed it up but regardless your idea of Muhammad being a leader is a moot point because it had nothing to do with what is common in Semitic culture

 

[Aristotle]

As has already been pointed out, Joseph wasn't the leader of a religion. Muhammad was, Jesus was, but not Joseph. Somebody is comparing apples and oranges again.

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Sorry, I believe you mean Lot had sex with his daughters. And my feeling is that this was the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah even after the fact... It appears that Noah's grandson either viewed the nakedness of his drunken grandfather and make light of it...

Well the point I was that one questioned Muhammad's relationship with A'isha on the basis that he (Muhammad) was a religious leader. My response thereafter was that Muhammad's leadership has nothing to do with a common Semitic custom. But if we are to find Muhammad's character questionable theb we should also question david, Solomon, Samson (who blame his bad luck on a woman). All Biblical and Quranic characteristics have questionable characteristics

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does Muhammad's leadership have to do with anything? Noah was saved by God when the floor happened and he had sex with his daughters because he was drunk--I would say after the world was destroyed according to your logic, Noah wae a leader of his faith. Being the leader of a religious faith has nothing to do with anything that is common in semitic culture.

Sorry, I believe you mean Lot had sex with his daughters. And my feeling is that this was the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah even after the fact... It appears that Noah's grandson either viewed the nakedness of his drunken grandfather and make light of it...

Well the point I was that one questioned Muhammad's relationship with A'isha on the basis that he (Muhammad) was a religious leader. My response thereafter was that Muhammad's leadership has nothing to do with a common Semitic custom. But if we are to find Muhammad's character questionable theb we should also question david, Solomon, Samson (who blame his bad luck on a woman). All Biblical and Quranic characteristics have questionable characteristics

Major difference being, no one will kill you if you point out that David committed adultery and murder in order to marry the wife of a friend.

 

[Aristotle]

Sorry, I believe you mean Lot had sex with his daughters. And my feeling is that this was the influence of Sodom and Gomorrah even after the fact... It appears that Noah's grandson either viewed the nakedness of his drunken grandfather and make light of it...

Well the point I was that one questioned Muhammad's relationship with A'isha on the basis that he (Muhammad) was a religious leader. My response thereafter was that Muhammad's leadership has nothing to do with a common Semitic custom. But if we are to find Muhammad's character questionable theb we should also question david, Solomon, Samson (who blame his bad luck on a woman). All Biblical and Quranic characteristics have questionable characteristics

Major difference being, no one will kill you if you point out that David committed adultery and murder in order to marry the wife of a friend.

Actually I know if I spat on the wailing wall and curse the prophets of Israel an Israeli mob of Jews would want to kill me

 

[Avatar4321]

Here is the problem some of you are missing.

There are many Christians, atheists, and some Jews including some Christian-based websites spend countless time and money to discredit Islam using the relationship between A'isha, and Muhammad. You see, people of the likes of Pat Robertson have no problem getting detailed using Islamic sources about Muhammad's relationship with A'isha, yet we dont talk about Mary and Joseph.

How do we know Mary was a virgin? I mean after all, the hymen can tear just by riding a camel. Or do we define her virginity based on what she said to Gabriel? Regardless why do we choose to forget the relationship ofan older man marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl? Someone here said it was apart of Jewish custom that men married younger women.

Ok if such is true the same can be said of Arabs and Europeans. After all, in those times a woman in her 20's was considered old. If we are going to judge Muhammad why not judge Joseph? Is it because he (Muhammad) married a 9 year-old girl or he may have had sexual relations? Why not Joseph? After all one could speculate that after Jesus' birth Joseph could've had wild sex with Mary. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't happen

Considering the exact opposite was written, I think that's good evidence that it didn't.

How many times do we have to point out the differences. There is no double standard even if the facts we are working with are correct (which there is doubt) that doesn't mean everyone agrees with them. Nor does it change the fact that a marriage to a prepubecent girl is much different than a marriage to a post pubecent girl. You haven't bothered to address that despite the fact that multiple people have pointed it out.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well the point I was that one questioned Muhammad's relationship with A'isha on the basis that he (Muhammad) was a religious leader. My response thereafter was that Muhammad's leadership has nothing to do with a common Semitic custom. But if we are to find Muhammad's character questionable theb we should also question david, Solomon, Samson (who blame his bad luck on a woman). All Biblical and Quranic characteristics have questionable characteristics

Major difference being, no one will kill you if you point out that David committed adultery and murder in order to marry the wife of a friend.

Actually I know if I spat on the wailing wall and curse the prophets of Israel an Israeli mob of Jews would want to kill me

There is a bit of a difference between pointing something out and disagreeing with someone else on a matter, and then being a rude @$$ to someone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well the point I was that one questioned Muhammad's relationship with A'isha on the basis that he (Muhammad) was a religious leader. My response thereafter was that Muhammad's leadership has nothing to do with a common Semitic custom. But if we are to find Muhammad's character questionable theb we should also question david, Solomon, Samson (who blame his bad luck on a woman). All Biblical and Quranic characteristics have questionable characteristics

Major difference being, no one will kill you if you point out that David committed adultery and murder in order to marry the wife of a friend.

Actually I know if I spat on the wailing wall and curse the prophets of Israel an Israeli mob of Jews would want to kill me

You know that? How?

 

[Aristotle]

Major difference being, no one will kill you if you point out that David committed adultery and murder in order to marry the wife of a friend.

Actually I know if I spat on the wailing wall and curse the prophets of Israel an Israeli mob of Jews would want to kill me

There is a bit of a difference between pointing something out and disagreeing with someone else on a matter, and then being a rude @$$ to someone.

The differences are arguable.

The point is I have never met a Muslim whom I've disagreed with on their faith and them wanting to kill me over it and I'm sure you and none of the Christians on this board have. Many often cite religious fanaticism happening in countries where secularism is not the predominant ideology.