Plotinus

muhammad_isa said:
Did you not read my post #26 ?
"A man is never justified in performing a sexual act with other than their wife."

I know that it is a problem in the West, where the institution of marriage
has broken down.
Click to expand...

If we look at things like 1 Corinthians 7 we learn that marriage is just an outlet for lust...

Even more fun on the topic is found in Luke 20:34-38 because here we learn that Gods people don't marry, instead the children of the resurrection are like angels.

The idea that marriage is sacred is odd, it is just a distraction from God.

It is the principle way we are caught in worldly binds.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It is possible to cite any controversial case, to attempt to prove that Sharia is
not fit for purpose.
Western law also fails its victims on many occasions.
Click to expand...
Mistakes happen, but western law punishes crime, not what the predominant religion determines to be sin. By the way, are you ok with the whipping, and merely commenting on the injustice of the woman's sentence exceeding that of the man?
muhammad_isa said:
Did you not read my post #26 ?
"A man is never justified in performing a sexual act with other than their wife."

I know that it is a problem in the West, where the institution of marriage
has broken down.
Click to expand...
Really?

The extracts below are from an article chosen at random. The references and information check out:

Muhammad and his followers fought many battles. Some were offensive some were defensive. Following a victory the Muslims would take captives, or prisoners of war. Muhammad would usually distribute the captives, both male and female, as slaves to his soldiers. Islam provides some basic rights to its slaves but these rights are limited. Naturally, the rights or demands of the slave owner were greater than those of the slaves.

Female slaves were used for primarily for work. But they also provided another service to their male masters ....

FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30
"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."

This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6
"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."
Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls. (Whose husbands were still alive -- RJM)

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).

This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.

Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

FROM THE QURAN - 33:50
"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."

This verse is about Muhammad. Supposedly, God allows Muhammad to have sex with his slave girls.

These verses establish that it was permissible for Muslim men to have sex with female slaves.

ISLAMIC EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM MEN HAVING SEX WITH THEIR FEMALE SLAVES.

Muhammad had sex with a slave girl named Mariyam. He probably also had sex with another slave girl of his - Rayhana.

Mariyam was a Christian slave girl and she was given to Muhammad as a gift by the governor of Egypt. Muhammad got her pregnant and she gave birth to a son. Afterwards Muhammad married her. The son died 18 months later.

Here is the reference.
In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says

"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."

The note for the word "handmaid" says "Handmaids gained the status of wedded wives if they bore children. They were called "umm walad" and became free.

This story is also supported by Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194. Here is the quote: (my words are in ( ) parenthesis).

"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."

The note (845) on this says, "That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, but he did not marry her."

We see that Muhammad had sex with his female slave without marrying her, that it was legal in Islam for Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves. They were after all, the Muslim man's property. Although the slave girls had some human rights, when it came to satisfying their master's desires they had to comply.

Read full article: https://answeringislam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
 
FrankSophia said:
The idea that marriage is sacred is odd, it is just a distraction from God..
Click to expand...
No. Marriage is ordained for mankind.
The security of family leads to a successful society, in which
people are emotionally secure, and the evils of promiscuity are minimised.
 
muhammad_isa said:
No. Marriage is ordained for mankind.
The security of family leads to a successful society, in which
people are emotionally secure, and the evils of promiscuity are minimised.
Click to expand...

I have provided new testament assertions that it decidedly isn't ordained for Christians...

The children of God do not marry.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I really have no interest in reading polemic text.
Click to expand...
They are passages from the Quran allowing men to have unmarried sex with female captives whose husbands are still alive. To rape them, in other words. It's in the Quran.
 
RJM said:
Mistakes happen, but western law punishes crime, not what the predominant religion determines to be sin. By the way, are you ok with the whipping, and merely commenting on the injustice of the woman's sentence exceeding that of the man?
Click to expand...
I'm not commenting on an individual case, as I have no details of a particular offence
in my possession.
 
RJM said:
They are passages from the Quran allowing men to have extra-marital sex with female captives whose husbands are still alive. It's in the Quran.
Click to expand...
Mmm .. but that is an exception, not the rule.
It does not mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry can claim that they have prisoners of war,
in order to commit adultery.
It also doesn't mean that a person can force them into performing a sexual act,
and walk away.
 
I has accused of loving sin...

I have had sex a total of 10 times in my life and the last time was almost 20 years ago...

Laughable.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Do you think Arius is bad?
Click to expand...
Not bad, per se. He was a very good and very popular prysbyter, by all accounts.

TheLightWithin said:
Are his ideas bad?
Click to expand...
The famous argument was 'there was a time when he (Jesus, as a divine person) was not.'

Arius proposed that the Son was created by the Father, before creation, before time began – a form of subordinationism which was still a vexxing question for the Church .... what exactly is the Son's relation to the Father?

For Arius, the Son possesses divine qualities imbued in Him by the Father, but where the Father is Divine in essence, the Son is not ... the Son is a different order of being altogether. Not human, nor angel, higher than they, but not God, and yet Godlike, a divinely-empowered intermediary.

This, inevitably, would lead the Son to be classed as a lesser god, and would open the way to accusations of polytheism – Of course, I'm saying this with 2,000 years of philosophical hindsight. Arius, God bless him, was trying to defend the 'Godness' of the Father, as it were.

(Origen had already argued that the Father begets the Son in eternity – that is, the begetting is a dynamic, rather than a static event.)

So from hindsight I'd say there was a better idea – Origen's is more logical – and Arius' idea was bad in the sense that it would have created further problems down the road.

The dispute staggered on, but Arius' original idea was soon binned, and replaced by versions of 'semi-Arianism' ...
 
He has turned this into a sex obsession thread but I'm the one saying inappropriate things?
 
Thomas said:
Not bad, per se. He was a very good and very popular prysbyter, by all accounts.


The famous argument was 'there was a time when he (Jesus, as a divine person) was not.'

Arius proposed that the Son was created by the Father, before creation, before time began – a form of subordinationism which was still a vexxing question for the Church .... what exactly is the Son's relation to the Father?

For Arius, the Son possesses divine qualities imbued in Him by the Father, but where the Father is Divine in essence, the Son is not ... the Son is a different order of being altogether. Not human, nor angel, higher than they, but not God, and yet Godlike, a divinely-empowered intermediary.

This, inevitably, would lead the Son to be classed as a lesser god, and would open the way to accusations of polytheism – Of course, I'm saying this with 2,000 years of philosophical hindsight. Arius, God bless him, was trying to defend the 'Godness' of the Father, as it were.

(Origen had already argued that the Father begets the Son in eternity – that is, the begetting is a dynamic, rather than a static event.)

So from hindsight I'd say there was a better idea – Origen's is more logical – and Arius' idea was bad in the sense that it would have created further problems down the road.

The dispute staggered on, but Arius' original idea was soon binned, and replaced by versions of 'semi-Arianism' ...
Click to expand...

I mean, it says Christ is the only begotten Son... and our sonship is through him...

Even the Father is not original though, it arises in relation to the difference between Son and essence...

Similarly, even words like Creator are actually meaningless, prior to creation it tells us nothing about the nature of God and his nature is not changing so it still doesn't.

I thought you were suggesting something about whether Christ was fully human or fully divine...

With divine eyes there is no distinction, yet the personality of Jesus is present with the activity of the Father (Hebrews 5:7 and John 14:10 for instance) which is the same here... memories of Frank exist but there is also a recognition of divinity that is unrelated to that and is my true nature.
 
@muhammad_isa
Men were having a problem about whether or not it was permitted them to rape married female captives whose husbands were still alive, therefore the above verses were revealed to the Prophet, saying its ok
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Then start your own website and set your own membership conditions. You already have several reports against you, and apparently still refuse to even read our Code of Conduct
Click to expand...

You have side tracked a thread to attack Islam and still want to claim the higher ground because you're an investor in an interfaith forum that has like 5 members?
 
FrankSophia said:
Most of the Christians I meet hate the mystical and think it's of the devil ...
Click to expand...
Good heavens! What kind of Christians are these?

FrankSophia said:
It's strange you seem to credit the Christians and yet agape is a Greek word ...
Click to expand...
Yes, but then the New Testament was written in Greek?

FrankSophia said:
, they have already broken down the various aspect of love and understand the divine dimension very well.
Click to expand...
Who have, sorry, not sure which 'they' you mean?

FrankSophia said:
so why do you want to give the Christians credit for mystical insights?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you've had such a poor experience of Christians. All I can say is my experience differs. While most, I agree, are not overly interested in the technicalities (nor need they be) there are plenty, in my experience, who are ...

I was once talking theology with my late mother. "I love listening to you talk," she said, "But all that really matters is the Eucharist."
Now that, my friend, is a mystical affirmation.

FrankSophia said:
Why do you say rightly so? Do you think it's a strength to have an uneducated and unthinking population?
Click to expand...
I'd rather people were better educated in Scripture, Tradition and the Liturgy, than in sophistry and lexicons; in simple theology rather than complex philosophy –

The essential message of Christianity is in no way dependent upon Greek philosophical principle.

FrankSophia said:
Philosophy is the recognized lack of wisdom according to Plato's definition ...
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a philosopher to be wise.

FrankSophia said:
... it seems to me this is the outcome of anyone who restricts themselves to Abrahamic notions without exploring outside the tradition...
Click to expand...
I rather say any authentic tradition – Abrahamic, Buddhist, Hindu (where it's 'remembered' rather than 'revealed'), whatever, is entire and complete in itself and sufficient for every human need and every eventuality, because of its ontology. It's inexhaustible. It's Infinite. If something is perceived as lacking, the fault lies with the beholder.

FrankSophia said:
They influenced Christianity by providing a mystical and experiential reality for the followers, but to this day most Christians do not engage anything like this... somehow they manage to keep the new testament entirely superficial.
Click to expand...
Again, this is just an ad hominem.

FrankSophia said:
Origin was probably a fellow student with Plotinus, he remained basically a Platonist applying that tradition to Christianity... which itself doesn't even provide a means to comprehend its concepts.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. I happen not to share it.

The Fathers, from Justin on, used philosophy as a tool to show that Christian belief as reasonable and rational, not as a means to comprehend its mysteries. Big difference.

FrankSophia said:
Modern science has confirmed there was never literally nothing, so creatio ex nihilo is wrong.
Click to expand...
Science and Revelation. Fish and bicycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top