Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Is Jas 2:19 ("queen" JV) the missing verse that defines the sin?

Another ignorant statement that only serves to underscore the depravity of islam.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Once again:

Mohammad and Aisha's marriage was arranged when she was 6. It was consummated at 9. They stayed married until he died.

I am glad you recognize that Muhammad consummated his marriage when she was a child of 9 years old. The first hint of intellectual honesty. Of course it is well documented so you can’t very well deny it can you? What is fundamentally tragic is that YOU support such a heinous act. Pedophilia is okay to you, your unholy man and your deity. What a sick, sick, sick religion you support.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Such practices followed traditions that go back to the beginning of time and were certainly followed long afterwards.

ROTFL - This in effect means that you believe “traditions” and “practices” trump your depraved writings. LOL! Your “scripture” is subject to “traditions” and “practices”… ROTFL

“Traditions” and “practices” are not morally equivalent to your unholy man’s actions or your deity’s “blessing” upon such a heinous act. Traditions and practices are the result of depraved men establishing a system of government. Why do Mohammedans seek Sharia law? Because Sharia law is supposed to be divinely inspired law that trumps the depraved attempts of humanity to govern itself such as “traditions” and “practices”. Therefore, your attempt to equate those histories with your deity and unholy man is a miserable failure and reveals that you don’t care about truth in any form.

The truth is that Mohammedans believe sharia is the “word of god” not traditions. They follow Mohammed; Hence, the classification of Mohammedans. They do not look to traditions or ancient practices to defend child brides. They look to the example and teachings of Muhammad.

Mohammedans only cite ancient “practices” and “traditions” to keep uninformed people from looking at their pedophile prophet and deity. They attempt a moral equivalency where there is none. Only Muhammad and their deity have the force of sharia and it is to sharia that they look to for this abhorrent culture of manipulation and exploitation.

As far as “following long afterwards” this is true among Mohammedans. They continue to practice this custom today.

“Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/tu...last-ten-years

What an utterly depraved religious system…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes, an ancient rabbi acknowledged the practice.

Again, Mohammedans do not look to Jewish Rabbi’s for their Islamic law. They look to Muhammad’s example and teachings from his deity. It is quite entertaining to see Mohammedans cite Jews for their defense. ROTFL!

The truth is they don’t care what Jews think. They simply look for anything that will deflect attention away from the facts. When majority Islamic nations seek to ban child marriages the muslim clerics fight against it because they know it puts their unholy prophet in a bad light. Therefore they prefer to continue the practice of child brides in honor of their defunct pedophile prophet. This culture of manipulation and exploitation continues today by muslims. As pointed out above Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini married a 10 year old girl. When he came to power he reduced the marriageable age for girls to 9 years old following Muhammad’s example.

The Ayatollah Khomeini did not cite ancient traditions and practices for justification. He cited Muhammad’s example. Thus, all this bologna is simply a smoke screen. It would be nice for you to stop with your prevarications. However, I will not hold my breath. You would rather justify this sick twisted behavior than admit the truth.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Church Jurists acknowledged the practice

In the 12th century, the jurist Gratian, an influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted the age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14, but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities with a claim that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds

This would be laughable if it was not so tragic. Once again the Mohammedan is seeking to make a moral equivalency where there is none. Not a single muslim would cite this as justification for continuing the practice of child brides. A person may question why that is. The answer is simple. They could care less what a 12th century jurist said. Also, this is extremely poor “scholarship”. The resident Mohammedan makes quotes without giving the reader the benefit of checking his quotation if they cared to. I don’t because, it’s simply another prevarication on his part.

This has nothing to do with what the example his prophet left behind. His prophet married a 6 year old girl, consummating, that marriage when she was only 9 years old. This was done without the knowledge of a 12th century jurist, a Jewish Rabbi or anything else. It stands and falls upon the merits, or lack thereof, of his religious system. Mohammedans do not look to these as any authority within sharia and certainly no Apostolic looks to these as divinely inspired precepts or principles to live by. There is no moral equivalence here. Only a failed attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Mohammedans do not cite any of this in their justification for maintaining such an absurdly heinous act. They only cite the example of Muhammad and their “divinely inspired” writings. That makes all this nonsense.


TBC

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Early American colonists acknowledged the practice

The American colonies followed the English tradition, but the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old".

Once again we see the extremely sloppy citation. Still it doesn’t matter because there is no moral equivalence. No Apostolic would suggest that the colonies developed “divinely inspired” laws and neither do muslims cite this when defending their culture of manipulation and exploitation. When muslim nations seek to raise the marriage age limit, to curtail this practice, Mohammedans always only cite the example of their prophet and his teachings. This is another, in the long list, of prevarications.

About the only good thing I can say about all this is that the local Mohammedan has mastered the art of developing straw man arguments. BTW the Ayatollah Khomeini did not care about this. He did however, care about the example of his prophet and the “blessing” of his deity.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You have demonstrated no sin and have won nothing here. My "argument" as you call it is simply a series of written references from various times in history from various authors and stands as written. No change, no way to rewrite it, no way to refute it, certainly not a single word in the bible, leaving you with nothing but insults, comparisons to me to people far away who I have nothing to do with (I'm a Texan dude), and various other rants unaccompanied by nothing but than your opinion and inflated sense of self-righteousness to support them.

Thank you for inadvertently establishing the fact that you support pedophilia. Because in your mind it is not a “sin”. All you have done is failed miserably to establish a straw man argument that has no moral equivalency. The only time Mohammedans cite such claptrap is to non-muslims to attempt to justify the culture of manipulation and exploitation of children codified within sharia. No Apostolic accepts anything you posted as “divinely inspired”. On the other hand there is no question where islam stands on the issue. You have confirmed this over and over and over.

Once again, in muslim lands when the government seeks to forbid child brides the muslim clerics argue against it solely on the example of Muhammad and his teachings. There is no moral equivalency in anything you posted.

All you have confirmed by your “history” is the fact of man’s depravity. No muslim believes anything you posted is divinely inspired and certainly no Apostolic believes anything you posted is divinely inspired.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I generously offered you the chance to expose this hideous sin by bringing some, any christian writing (minus the bible) and you have declined to do this as well. In over 2000 years of Christian practices to draw from you have come up dry. Nobody wins or loses here. Your beliefs condemn all of history, and you have only succeeded in convincing yourself that you are not only better than me, you are better than any person who has ever lived.

LOL! You will accept anything except the Bible! An inadvertent acknowledgment of the depravity of islam and the superior nature of the Bible. Don’t fret. Many people will listen to anything except the Bible.

Yeah I will not argue the merits, or lack thereof, based upon human reasoning. The Bible is the sole arbiter of truth. Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life.

Please reconsider your thought processes here. Sincerely look at this. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid for a while and think about what you are supporting. God gave you a brain and common sense. Is it right for a 50 year old man to consummate a marriage with a 9 year old little girl?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

In this, you have experienced the typical christian "victory" and have "vanquished" your "enemy" with a carefully crafted "argument" that makes you feel "good" and defines yourself as a "better person" than anyone else who has ever lived in all of history. Do you to kindly savor this, wallow in it, engulf yourself in it. I crown you as the king of "better man".

NOTE: Pedophilia is what happens in your sunday schools. We were discussing marriage, in this case a "death til us part" marriage and there IS actually a difference.

You probably don't see that either though. Have a nice day, oh righteous one. Though you cannot rewrite history you are certainly (more than) qualified to write your OWN bible - LOL

You are once again wrong. I do not feel good about any of this. I am thankful that through God’s grace I have found the truth. He has called me out of darkness and into His marvelous light. I would rather hear of you finding a Bible believing church and allow God to call you out of the darkness of islam into His marvelous light.

Note: if you know of the exploitation you mentioned you have a responsibility to report it. So go report it and make the world a better place.

May the goodness of God grant you repentance.

[shazeep]

do yourself a favor, and get some help.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You will accept anything except the Bible!

Was there anything from the bible, teachings from the bible, references from the bible, commentary from a scholar of the bible, some small detail at all remotely related to the bible in all of that noise or is it actually you who will accept anything but the bible?

I was being generous and asked you not for stories of the Ayatollah but specific teachings from the early christian faith or from early christian writings or any religious writings establishing this requirement and you have failed to do so. Has the church of 2000 years been depraved all this time?

You appear to be unable to, which adequately explains but does not justify your red-faced spitting. Again, it looks foolish.

You are right, we do not follow ancient Jewish law but you recognize it and teach it as God's law (well at least the tithing LOL). It is after all in your bible. Take children as wives for yourselves, capture and marry random girls, marry your rapist, all of it but while the bible is silent on the issue of marriage age it seems to be very enthusiastic about the role of women as property only and if God is the same "yesterday today and forever" maybe you should have a translator (other than those in the employ of "queen" James) gloss that over if you have problems with those particular teachings.

We do not follow early church teachings but there has supposedly been a church for 2000 years. In all of that time has there not been a ruling, a teaching, on this issue? The data says there has not been. Absent specific biblical teachings we are left with actual practices. As I noted (much much - bleh) earlier the practices, unless you have something, anything, else, appear to support my conclusion that though currently distasteful the practice of marriage at very young ages falls across all cultures and all religions and has NEVER at any time in history been declared a sin.

Having daughters, and since the choice is up to me, my personal practice is to quietly clean a .357 when boys come by and clearly/firmly communicate that whatever they do to my daughters I will do to them but that is my choice, leaving me personally blameless on this issue.

You don't even have a straw man here. Gent above was right. You need to get some sleep.

[shazeep]

well, i have seen this specific type of Islamophobia before, this morbid fixation on the prophet's wives--generally from clergy who are closet pederasts or have been incestuous with their daughters. Had a fiance whose father/deacon abused her and ranted on like this. There are counselors trained to help, and they are discreet.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i have seen this specific type of Islamophobia before, this morbid fixation on the prophet's wives--generally from clergy who are closet pederasts or have been incestuous with their daughters. Had a fiance whose father/deacon abused her and ranted on like this. There are counselors trained to help, and they are discreet.

Seems there is a weird thread of desperation running through these posts. Cannot pinpoint the cause. I gave the benefit of the doubt and attributed it to a simple unfulfilled need to be "better".

Like an addiction, "betterness" is a monkey that never dies and never goes away and requires a constant refill, unfortunately at the expense of the nearest (occasionally random) person. The opposite of "betterness" is humility, as practiced by Jesus and there is a never-ending supply. God hands out routine doses of that......LOL whether one believes in Him or not.

Maybe you are right. Perhaps this is a cry for help and a need to cover some hidden issue. There certainly seems to be an unhealthy (and yes you are right morbid) fascination with this issue. Your earlier advice turns out to be spot on. Time to say a prayer for this poor guy and move on.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

No Apostolic accepts anything you posted as “divinely inspired”.

Note: if you know of the exploitation you mentioned you have a responsibility to report it. So go report it and make the world a better place.

I did report it. Jesus was birthed by a married teen mother. Your theory ends there. World is the same as it was before the report.

I have another report. Once back in the 80's there was a pennycostal church in louisiana who gave away "mothers day presents" to the youngest and oldest mother on mothers day sunday. A single teen mother a little older than Jesus' mother attended one mothers day with her baby. As an unwed mother she was deemed unfit to receive that gift by a quiet remark by an usher to whatever relative she attended with so the gift was given to a more (but older) respectable mother. I doubt she ever came back but I am very, very sure that everyone else went home with a higher sense of betterness than they brought to church. To an apostolic this was a righteous act.

I know this because I knew that girl.

Moral: I don't give two shakes what an "apostolic" believes or doesn't believe. Apostolics in their own churches treat innocent strangers like trash and this treatment of others is not practiced by good, wholesome, God-fearing people.

Anything else? Any other "extra-biblical" sins? I am reporting the growth of sinful whiskers. The debbil put them there. If I DO ever visit a bible-believing church, I am sure that the same ushers who whispered a quiet word to that young lady's relatives will seat me in the back so that my whiskers don't contaminate the freshly bathed smoothly-shaven regulars.

OH I took the kiddos swimming yesterday. There were men AND women in the pool. I would also like to report that sinful activity. Call 911 or something. It was in Jakarta, where they also don't give two shakes what you believe is or is not right or is or is not sinful either.

Got you a gift. You can play "better man" ANYWHERE, even right in the comfort of your own home! Over and over and over if you want to. Me, I personally hope it's an apartment and you have large grumpy neighbors. God uses just about anyone when He wants to dole out a lesson in humility. Please post pics!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Jesus was born to a teenage girl? <gasp>

Yes but not pre-teen.

Young girls married early.


“Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.”

An espousal or betrothal is the act of engagement for marriage, a formal agreement that may take the form of a verbal promise or a written contract between two individuals. The betrothal is an ancient custom dating from biblical times when marriages were arranged by a parent or guardian. It was considered the beginning of marriage, and since it was legally binding, the pledge could not be broken except by a bill of divorce. This is the reason why Joseph is referred to as the husband of Mary in verse 19 of the first chapter of Matthew.
The presentation of gifts often accompanied or signified a marriage contract. When Abraham’s servant received the consent of Rebekah’s father and brother to make her the wife of his master’s son, he presented valuable gifts to Rebekah (see Genesis 24:53).
In societies where arranged marriages still exist, the families concerned must negotiate dowries, future living arrangements, and other important matters before marriage can be arranged. Espousals were often made very early in life, though marriage did not take place until the bride reached twelve years of age or had experienced her first menstrual cycle. Infant betrothal or marriage, still prevalent in places such as India and Melanesia, is a result of concern for family, caste, and property alliances. During the Middle Ages, arranged betrothals were used to strengthen royal dynasties, establish diplomatic alliances, and increase estates and fortunes. Even when the age was suitable, the marriage was not consummated for some time after the betrothal. The bride remained at her father’s or guardian’s home until the time of the marriage.


Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (397). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

[Praxeas]

I think it's disgusting. But it was a facet of Bedouin culture. Much of the Quran is based on Bedouin culture.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes but not pre-teen.

Young girls married early.


“Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.”

An espousal or betrothal is the act of engagement for marriage, a formal agreement that may take the form of a verbal promise or a written contract between two individuals. The betrothal is an ancient custom dating from biblical times when marriages were arranged by a parent or guardian. It was considered the beginning of marriage, and since it was legally binding, the pledge could not be broken except by a bill of divorce. This is the reason why Joseph is referred to as the husband of Mary in verse 19 of the first chapter of Matthew.
The presentation of gifts often accompanied or signified a marriage contract. When Abraham’s servant received the consent of Rebekah’s father and brother to make her the wife of his master’s son, he presented valuable gifts to Rebekah (see Genesis 24:53).
In societies where arranged marriages still exist, the families concerned must negotiate dowries, future living arrangements, and other important matters before marriage can be arranged. Espousals were often made very early in life, though marriage did not take place until the bride reached twelve years of age or had experienced her first menstrual cycle. Infant betrothal or marriage, still prevalent in places such as India and Melanesia, is a result of concern for family, caste, and property alliances. During the Middle Ages, arranged betrothals were used to strengthen royal dynasties, establish diplomatic alliances, and increase estates and fortunes. Even when the age was suitable, the marriage was not consummated for some time after the betrothal. The bride remained at her father’s or guardian’s home until the time of the marriage.


Freeman, J. M., & Chadwick, H. J. (1998). Manners & customs of the Bible (397). North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

Married teen report stands. Why? She appears to have left her family's and was a part of Joseph's household based on the story that they travelled to Bethlehem together, as a couple, for the census. I highly doubt that they raised any eyebrows along the way. I truly believe that you aren't implying that Joseph was "sneaking a teen girl across state lines" so to speak without being married to her.

Back to topic which is sin, not history, as your colleague (yea you can have him take him please) has said enough times to make one nauseated:

Is the above a sin or not a sin?

Marriage at young ages IS a distasteful practice. I agree. Based on the Bible: Sinful? Yes or No? I cannot find anything, anywhere, that says that it is.