Apology accepted, Bug, thank you.

I guess the answer to your question would be affected by where and when I lived.

Today, in America? Certainly not.

I believe only some African tribes still marry their daughters off that young today.

In 700 AD in the MidEast? Most likely, as that was considered the societal norm then.

Does this mean that your inner moral values
change depending on social influence.
I'm mean the whole point to becoming a civilized
community and country is to progress, not
to fall back and say "if we lived back in those day's it would be ok".
I think that's what has made the western civilization greater than any other, is the
fact that we have progressed beyond the quote
"old time religion".
Just my .02

Post from Hannah_Reitsch -

Hannah, I'll let you know when and if I am ever 'stymied for facts.'

And how did I attack [b]Kar98[/b] personally?

[b]Kar98[/b] posted a historical overview that seemed to espouse the idea that schtupping a 9 or 10 year old girl had cultural backing.

I came back with a response that said whether or not there was a cultural background that may have once supported the schtupping of a mere child, such an idea was wrong and the culture that produced it was wrong [i][b]ab initio.[/b][/i]

From the beginning, in other words.

And to demonstrate that just because something was something that a culture may have approved of at one time, did not make it something that we should forgive the offending culture for even today.

I used the late German atrocities carried out on the Jewry of Europe as an example of a more recent exhibition of incredibly evil thinking that beset an entire people.

The same nation that gave us Goethe, Bach, and Beethoven, gave us Streicher, Himmler and Eichmann.

[b]Sooooo what?[/b] Who gives a rat's rear about using what mankind has done in the past as an excuse to try and make up excuses for those past atrocities?

Because he took advantage of a cultural flaw that would permit a 52 year old man to climb into the bed of a 9 year old, yes it does.

Because he took advantage of a cultural flaw in that a father could give away his 9 year old daughter to a 52 year old man, yes, it does.

Because he was the sort of man that would think that having intercourse with a 9 year old girl would be something that should be done!

Because it speaks volumes of his personal character that he would have intercourse with a 9 year old girl.

If it's not a problem, [b]Hannah[/b], why are there laws against such things in most civilized countries?

Do you personally think any 9 year old girl anywhere needs the sexual attention of a 52 year old man? I know you don't now, but do you think it might have been OK back in 654 AD?

So we're back to Situational Ethics 101.

Thanks, but no thanks!

Eric The(NotSoEasilyOffended)Hun[>]:)]

Post from Icemanat95 -

Thank you, Icemanat95, could you give us an example today of an institutionalized behavior that Christianity has today that many of us would consider abhorrent?

And, by the use the term 'institutionalized behavior', you must give us one example that universally applies to Christianity, and not merely one or two sects.

Child brides apparently apply to all of Islam, since it was their founder and leader that gave them this feature.

I eagerly await your reply.

Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]

You know Eric, some of these people have a point.

What Mohammad did back then is irrelivant. Cause Christians married young then too.

Are Muslims practicing this now is the question. And given everything else they do to denegrate women how does this stand out?

Women are owned by their families and then by their husband. They also have NO rights over the children produced by that union.  So naturally there is going to be no say as to what age the men start screwing them.  The abuse is built into the system regardless of whether or not the clerics approve or not.

Where are you going with this? We already knew Muslims abused their women, this sheds no new light.

Post from Kar98 -

Not quite, [b]Kar98[/b], not just yet, anyway.

Your sig line quote reads as follows:

[b]2 Corinthians 11:13-15[/b]

13   For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14   And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15   Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

For Lord's sake, [b]Kar98[/b], don't be so obtuse!

If you think I'm some sorta 'false apostle' then just come out and say so! My feelings won't be hurt at all!

As a matter of fact, nothing that anyone says about me on this Board will ever offend me in the slightest. I am beyond your taunts![:D]

It does, however, appear that both you and [b]Hannah[/b] take great exception to just about everything I say about you.

So, while I cannot refer to Hannah as one of your minions, nor will I refer to you as one of hers, I would appreciate it if you would inform Hannah that she needs to knock off calling anyone who agrees with me as one of my minions.

That word has such a distasteful connotation in my mind, as I'm sure it does those members to whom she refers as my minions.

Sort of like the distasteful connotations that some ordinary German words have been given after that late unpleasantness.

Eric The(Dignified)Hun[>]:)]

Post from ArmdLbrl -

Yes, and if they did, they were as wrong then as they are now. Same with infanticide, slavery, human sacrifice, etc.

Wrong then, wrong now!

But to have the Founder of your religion engage in such an outrageous act, I would rather call the Islamic historians liars, then think that Mohammed did what they write he did.

If they think it is divinely inspired and that the Great Prophet could do it and Allah would bless him and the offspring of such a union, would mean that this offense would never die out among this group.

But the fact that the clerics do approve it is the substance of the issue, isn't it?

They must approve it or call their Great Prophet a [b]pedophile[/b]!

Yes, it does indeed, for until I read that article, I never knew that Mohammed had slept with Aisha when she was only 9 years of age!

I thought I knew a lot concerning Islam, it appears I knew nothing!

Because this sin was part and parcel of a lost humanity that was little better than beasts of the field when it came to the free use of the sexual facilities of young and old alike!

And when combined with the low estate of women in that culture, it must have certainly been a helluva thing to have been a woman now or then in their society.

Compare that with Jesus' life on earth. How did He treat women and request that they be treated?

Just read about it. Or if you have read it, simply compare it in your mind to see the difference between these two Founders.

Eric The(Surprised?)Hun[>]:)]

Ok Eric, I guess I see your point.

Somebody I guess would find it important.

But to me that is like saying "Adolf Hitler was a Mass Murderer who sent 9 million civilians to their deaths- and oh, by the way, he was a child molester". From my point of view how can I get any MORE outraged by adding that last sin to what we already knew?

Does kind of explain where Islam gets its attitudes toward women though...

Christianity, unlike Islam, has evolved with western civilization and its rough edges were eventually buffed off.  I'd say there are few if any abusive practices remaining in christianity as a whole.

Radical Islam is a medieval religion. It ceased to evolve around the time Islam was pushed out of Western Europe (Spain and Portugal) around the middle of the 15th century. By that time, Islam had been stymied by radical fundamentalist clerics who hated the tolerance shown by the Islamic rulers of Spain up to that time.

After the fundamentalist "reformation" of Islam, it lost much of that ground and has not recovered to this day.   This willful clinging to outdated cultural behaviors is Islam's greatest weakness because it doesn't allow Islam to evolve away from its cultural bias.

Most of Christianities "abhorrent behaviors" are limited to the Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

I think it is fairly safe to say that the burning of "heretics" was pretty common across all major Christian sects, at least in the Western traditions.  This includes "witches, werewolves and vampires" well into the 17th century and even later in Eastern Europe.

Discrimination and seperation of menstruating women from society was a widely practiced carry over from Judaic practice.  Subordination of women to men continues to this day to a greater or lesser extent.

Slaughtering infidels/saracens etc. seems to be a common atrocity amongst all religions, and remains to this day.The first and second Crusades pretty much encompassed all Christianity at the time, both western and eastern traditions and included many, many atrocities that were considered "holy" because they were perpetrated against unbelievers. Sectarian violence today however, tends to follow social lines with immature societies using religion as an excuse to slaughter one another.

You are right however in noting that Christianity, as represented most conservatively in the New Testament, is far less prone to the errors that older religions like Judaism are subject to, if only because Christianity as we know it is thousands of years younger than Judaism and represented a revolutionary break from it's parent religion. Islam is far less revolutionary and much more tied to it's parent culture and religion, thus it upholds more archaic social norms that christianity tossed aside.

It also helps that Christianity was a religion that developed across cultures.  Because it developed independent from a specific culture it was not overburdened by cultural expectations instead centering on the teachings of Christ, which were, again, revolutionary.

To me, it's kinda unfair to criticize them for following the accepted behavior and cultural norms of the day. If it's their custom to marry a girl immediately following her menarche, and that is their accepted norm, I don't see how they can be faulted. And, BTW, if you lived to the ripe old age of 30 you might want to start your family early.

Was it in the best interests of the girl in [b]those[/b] days? I don't know. Perhaps so, perhaps not. This issue needs to be researched.

Now, to do that today is wrong. We all agree to that, I'm sure. If you ask me, no one should marry until they're 30 and gotten partying out of their system.

Anyway, to judge them (or anyone) for doing something they considered normal, accepted behavior in their time using our modern day rules and values is a little disingenuous.

Oh gods, I can't beleve I fogot this.

I fogot that it is almost impossible to marry too early, (assuming you treat your women like cattle), when they are going to be constantly pregnant or nursing their whole adult lives and probably wont live to menapause.

If your women aren't likely to make it to fourty, then finding one who is fertile early is a bonus. That could meen a couple or three more kids before she croaks. And the labor provided by your children= real wealth.

Its hard to find a society that didn't do this before the 19th century.

I kick myself for not remembering this earlier.

I wish somebody would delete this stupid thread.  Frankly, I'm offended that Eskimos rub noses with 9 year old girls.  They should all be shot.  [rolleyes]

I second that motion.



Those bastards!

Back in the Middle Ages, African tribesmen used to chop the hands off of children from other tribes!


...oh yeah, they do that now.

It is one thing for a culture to be so backward as to do some of the things set forth in this thread.

It is quite another for the Founder of one of the World's Great Religions to do so.

Period.

Eric The(Embarrassed)Hun[>]:)]

Eric's little minions?
This is at least the second time I have seen you use this line.

That is a personal attack and against board rules.

Eric provides information on this board.  I have NEVER seen a post of yours that provided anything informative to the discussion.  Only attacks.

Dukota and ilikelegs:

I have rechecked the posts on this thread carefully, and amazingly enough, I found that
neither of you has posted ONE RELEVANT THING on this thread, except to personally attack anyone who disagreed with your precious Eric.
This indeed makes you "minions".

Main Entry: min·ion
Pronunciation: 'min-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French mignon darling
Date: 1501
1 : a servile dependent, follower, or underling
2 : one highly favored :  see: IDOL
3 : a subordinate or petty official

Now, if you have nothing more to add to the topic, I suggest you wipe the brown stuff off your noses, and find your OWN opinion on the topic at hand.
Surely you have your OWN opinions?
Or do you have to ask Eric?
Tell us, is it a sociological phenomenon, or were the Christians equally guilty of child marriages until this century?
Let's hear it, boys.
No personal slurs, no "back-up" to your "best buddy", just an educated opinion on the social issue we are discussing.
Can you handle it?

No attacks.  If you look at my first post, My firt comment was "Give it a rest".

Reading the same drivel from you post after post is VERY boring.

Nowhere in my post was there any name calling(little minions).  I haven't been anyone little anything since I was about 6yrs old.

If you can show me how I am ETH's:

Hello, [b]Hannah[/b], I remind you to think about the Forum Conduct Rules when addressing fellow Board members.

I will certainly not call you upon the carpet, since we are at loggerheads already, but I will ask someone impartial if your use of the term 'minions' is a personal attack on someone that should not be tolerated. The remainder of your most recent post appears to be a personal attack as well!

Besides, I have asked both you and your distant cousin/friend/whatever to address me directly with whatever nastiness you desire.

I can assure you that nothing derogatory that you may say about me will cause you any grief whatsoever.

I am not a little tattletale, but a serious adult who has handled in courtrooms across the country a whole lot worse than [b]Frick und Frack[/b] can manage in the way of invective. I've been cursed and abused by the best, so have at it kids!

Eric The(AtYourService)Hun[>]:)]

ilikelegs and dukota:
Please show me your "on topic" posts in this thread. You know, the ones about child marriage.
I went through all 3 pages and didn't see one that had anything to do with the topic at hand.
Only rudeness for daring to question your buddy. Nasty remarks that were totally off topic.
This, by the Merriam Webster definition, makes you both "minions".
As I have previously stated, you can carry on all you wish, but you are NOT addressing the issue, which is that Christian society tolerated very young marriages until a century ago also.
It is truly the pot calling the kettle black, when one considers that Mohammed lived in the 700s AD.
Societal mores have a huge influence on such things as marriage age.

I think this sums it up pretty well:

"Had I not met a Christian, I would have become a Christian."  --Gandhi

Post from marvl -

Yes, this from a man who believed that it is unlawful to kill cattle to feed children who are starving.

To paraphrase something that Jesus actually said, Jesus would probably say, Cattle were made for man, and not man made for cattle, or words to that effect.

Jesus just keeps knocking them outta the park!

Eric The(Sensible)Hun[>]:)]

I'd like to see one of our resident Bible scholars compile a list of the known ages (at marriage) of the wives of major Biblical figures (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, et cetera).  


Perhaps Jesus treated his wife so horribly that the evangelists decided to not even mention her. [;)]

(Just kidding, but wouldn't it have been unusual for a 30 year old man in ancient Israel to never have married?)

Post from Renamed -

Not really, but what would have been [u]most[/u] unusual in ancient Israel would be to meet a 'man' Who proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God.

Didn't happen very often, I can assure you of that!

Apparently, Jesus partook of only two of the Sacraments of His church - baptism and communion. Not marriage.

Eric The(WhoIsLikeUntoTheLord?)Hun[>]:)]

Wow, this thread is still around.

Well after popular request, I have a moment to weigh in with my opinion.

Renamed asked almost exactly the same question I was going to ask.

Did Jesus, any of his followers or any other prophets or religious founders marry or have sex with minors, aside from Mouhammed?

I think not and therin lies the difference.  While it may have been acceptable practice during many times in history, never was it a practice by any religious founders or prophets, except Mouhammed.

Can you quote a verse that states that Jesus never married, or are you just assuming that it didn't happen because it isn't mentioned?

Well, [b]Renamed[/b], I'm certain that Jesus never booked a trip to Disneyworld during His lifetime on earth, but you know I simply can't prove such a negative based upon anything written in the New Testament.

But I'll keep reading it and, if I find anything, I'll let you know immediately!

BTW, you are not a believer in the [b]Holy Grail, Holy Blood[/b] nonsense? Right?

Eric The(You'veGottaBeKidding)Hun[>]:)]

[b]Bloody[/b] well said! Bravo! Someone who gets it and can put it into two sentences or less!

Well done!

[beer]

As for those camel-humping, rag-wearing, "Allah-Ackabar"-screaming, AK-47-toting, bomb-strapping, sand-lice-bitten, women-beating, child-killing barbarians, I say feed 'em to the ovens. Live, dead....doesn't matter, really.

But hey, that's just my .223...

You mean the notion that the "Holy Grail" is actually the bloodline of Jesus?

[url]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/holy_grail.htm[/url]

Sorry, I'm unable to confirm or deny my belief in any whacky conspiracy theories. [whacko]
[;)]

Post from Renamed -

No, I mean the [b]blasphemy[/b] that there is [u]bloodline[/u] of Jesus!

That's almost, but not quite, right up there with belief that the Brits are one of the lost tribes of Israel and that Queen Elizabeth II is the rightful monarch of Israel!

In think they call it British Identity...

Eric The(WellReasoned)Hun[>]:)]

Which statement of mine would you like me to back up?

Pretty damn wise 'asshole' though.

I'd more like to think of Solomon as one of the Godly kings in the OT.  David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Joash, Uzziah, and other (sort-of good) kings sinned too, but does that make them 'assholes'?

Allow me to explain:

When someone posts a series of messages with the theme of "Our prophets are better than their prophet", I think it's only fair that those making the "ours are better" claim back it up somehow.  Since I'm not the one implying that the Biblical prophets didn't do something that Mohammed did (marry a child), I don't see why I should be obligated to support that claim.

Certainly, I will grant you that there are no Bible verses that state that one of God's servants married a child.  On the other hand, though, when the Bible does refer to wives, it rarely mentions their ages.

Example: the Bible (Genesis 6) mentions that Noah had a wife, but it doesn't give any indication of how old she was at marriage.  Was she 4 years old or 40?  The Bible doesn't say.

Similarly, while the Bible doesn't condone sex with children, there are no verses (that I've found) that condemn it, either.  Apparently, though, when Lot offers his virgin (how old?) daughters to the mob in Genesis 19, God didn't have a problem with that.

If God didn't like the offer of the virgin daughters, he didn't dislike it strongly enough to let Lot be destroyed with the rest of Sodom, no?

Post from Renamed -

No one posted anything of the kind in this thread. The subject was that Mohammad, the Founder of one of the World's Great Religions, (1) thought he was possessed at times by demons, and (2) consummated his marriage to a 9 year old girl.

This, no matter what time in human history it occurred, is [u]not[/u] consonant with what most folks would think would be the spirituality of someone 'of God.'

If you know that it is not right for a 52 year old man to sleep with a 9 year old girl, how is it that the enlightened Mohammad did not know this?

Because you are asking others to prove a universal negative, which cannot be done!

Just as in my statement above about Jesus never having purchased a ticket to Disneyworld during His earthly lifetime, I could [u]not[/u] possibly prove that He didn't simply by making reference to the New Testament.

So if you want to allege that some Biblical figure did, in fact, do what is being claimed Mohammad did, then it is up to you to provide evidence of it, and not for us to try and disprove it!

Understand?

Eric The(EasyNuff!)Hun[>]:)]

No?  Then what was the meaning of this...?

Am I wrong to think that this comparison was supposed to reflect unfavorably upon Mohammed?

Post from Renamed -

Well, only if [b]you[/b] think that the very idea of a 52 year old man consumating his arranged marriage with one of his supporters' daughters, who was only 6 at the time of the arranged 'marriage' and only 9 at the time that the marriage was consummated, [u]should[/u] reflect unfavorably upon Mohammad!

The comparison was not Prophet to prophet, but Founder to founder! And that Islamic fellow lost out totally!

Eric The(OK?)Hun[>]:)]