Originally posted by ahosyneyEverybody is free to enjoy sex with everybody if the couple, the triple etc that they participate are doing it with their free will and because they like it. It 's a personal issue and nobody has the right to interfare.
The problem is that there will be no difference between human society and animal ones. It will be a complete sexual mess where every one can have sex with who ever he wants when ever he wants. There will be no family , and hence there will be society.
There is nothing wrong with me, the problem is with you guys.
I understand that the human rights ...[text shortened]... g the middle age then whoever want this sexual mess is actually living in a pre-human age.
Adultery is a signal that the members of the couple in question have not the desire to keep up living together, so they have to divorce. And, nowdays, usually the man gets the pleasure whilst the woman gets the pleasure and the pill, or the man gets his condom and the pleasure whilst the woman gets pure pleasure; of course the woman can get the pleasure and the baby and drop the man whilst the man will get the pleasure and a short notice to leave for good;
Holy $%^t, this conversation forces me to go back home runnin and enjoy this fresh young night with my beautiful Maria;
😵😵
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you think this thread belongs in the "spirituality" forum you either don't understand what "spirituality" means or you don't know the meaning of the term "power politics" .... you probably have mixed up the two and believe they are interchangeable .... many people have .... the Taliban for instance.
This is the most despicable act of religious cruelty I have ever come across. And people wonder why I hate religions, religions of death like Islam and Christianity.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.acid.attack/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
4 edits
Originally posted by Palynkai find this statement quite offensive and may report it to the forum moderator! however i need to know what is your stance with regard to conscience, do you assert that every human being is a free moral agent or not? no matter if you do not as it can be proven with recourse to the Nuremberg trials that we are, i just want to know your stance, the stance of black beetle and the stance of bosse - regards robbie.
Ha! That's what the Holy Spirit said!
p.s. its important with respect to something that bosse had stipulated as to why honor killings take place in a predominately patriarchal society and why i intensely argue against Islam and its adherents - thanks Robbie.
1 edit
ok seeing that you will not forward your opinions, i must assume that you hold every individual to be a free moral agent, this fact was established at the nuremberg trials, i provide a following reference for your perusal,
Nuremberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
from this statement it is quite clear that every individual has an innate sense of morality, regardless of the culture or immediate society which may impose certain values upon the individual. therefore with regard to the patriarchal systems of Judaism and Islam, i hold that it is self evident, based on its ritualistic manner and imposition of governing laws upon individual and society alike, that it induces an individual to suppress his own innate conscience which results in acts of atrocities, much in the same way that Nazism did to those who served under its banner.
this is not true of Christianity as taught by Christ which has primarily a broad range of principles and only two laws, to love god and to love ones neighbor as oneself, thus facilitating the exercise of conscience. if those who were involved in the discussion would like to forward their comments as to this self evident reality then good and well, if not, then their silence is indicative of their acquiescence and will be taken as such.
Originally posted by black beetleI am still struggling to see why you called 'an eye for an eye' barbaric when the example you give of a woman being stoned for adultery is clearly not an eye for an eye. Surely the correct punishment for adultery would be for the spouse to commit adultery too? The problem is it would not have the desired effect as the pain caused by an adulterous spouse is unlikely to be equal for both parties.
If my wife wants to sleep with another man or if she actually does it, when I will find it out I will divorce her. However you are free to get yours in front of your precious Sharia and have her killed; it seems that you know very well what for the stones at the size of the palm must be used for.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis specific answer of mine has to do solely with the "crime" of the adultery and the proper punishment that is required by Sharia, twhitehead pal, and it is not an example for the "eye for an eye". I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I will try to make my opinion clearer:
I am still struggling to see why you called 'an eye for an eye' barbaric when the example you give of a woman being stoned for adultery is clearly not an eye for an eye. Surely the correct punishment for adultery would be for the spouse to commit adultery too? The problem is it would not have the desired effect as the pain caused by an adulterous spouse is unlikely to be equal for both parties.
I said that nowdays the "an eye for an eye" approach is barbaric anyway: let's suppose that a drunk driver kills a mother and her baby. He must be punished severely, however we are not supposed to let somebody have some malt, get high and run over him.
On the other hand, I moved on and I claimed that adultery is not a crime, however it is a "crime" under the "law" of Sharia. So if the adulterer is to be "judged" by a Sharia "court" and finally found "guilty", then he will suffer a death under the most barbaric circumstances. All this approach for me is BS big time and I openly state that I consider everybody who accepts Sharia as a blinded religionist. Of course I see the Christians which they believe that the adultery is a "crime" as blinded religionists too, but there is at least a difference: no western court will sentence an adulterer to death -and the reason why is that in the West we keep the Church and the Government separated.
Originally posted by black beetleI don't agree,
This specific answer of mine has to do solely with the "crime" of the adultery and the proper punishment that is required by Sharia, twhitehead pal, and it is not an example for the "eye for an eye". I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I will try to make my opinion clearer:
I said that nowdays the "an eye for an eye" approach is barbaric anyway: let ...[text shortened]... ason why is that in the West we keep the Church and the Government separated.
I think adultry and sexual mess a basically a barbaric action, and close to animal behavior than human one.
So what you are defending is basicly the same behavior of pre-cilization nations. No one know who is his father is, and it is normal to watch people doing sex on streets.
By the way under Sharia law not every adulterer is stoned. I asked before about the conditions to punish man/woman with stoning. The first condition is four witnesses. And they have to give the same testimony, and they have to see the intercourse. I don't think this condition could be archived unless you are doing it in public, and that is what the Sharia law fights, the spread of fornication, which is very barbaric.
In this thread the following claims are made about the law,
0- It advocate the act presented in the thread.
1- Stoning is only for women.
2- It is the right for the husband to kill his wife for adultery.
3- It is the right for the father to kill his daughter if he think she made adultery (or even for talking to a guy).
4- That talking to men is enough to stone a girl.
5- That eye to eye is a basic law and it should be used blindly.
6- That it is up to individuals to use the eye-to-eye law.
7- Two claims were made about two types of Marriages that they are supported by Islam. While the are clearly a type of adultery.
Who support these claims?
Originally posted by ahosyneyThe way an individual behaves in his bedroom is not your business.
I don't agree,
I think adultry and sexual mess a basically a barbaric action, and close to animal behavior than human one.
So what you are defending is basicly the same behavior of pre-cilization nations. No one know who is his father is, and it is normal to watch people doing sex on streets.
By the way under Sharia law not every adulterer is ston ...[text shortened]... ic, and that is what the Sharia law fights, the spread of fornication, which is very barbaric.
Adultery is not a crime; it is a "crime" solely for people which they share the same religionist beliefs with you.
So what I am actually defending is the right of the individual to enjoy his sex life the way he wants with the person(s) he wants, whilst his companion feels just the same.
I never said that I want to see the people having sex in the street although I have nothing against one for the road🙂. You said that you are a student in Canada. Have you seen many people having sex in the streets?
I am indifferant to the conditions required under the "law" of Sharia and I explained the reason why. I do not respect Sharia because I do not want to be judged by a flock of religionists. You are free to enjoy Sharia though -in your respected country, that is.
Originally posted by ahosyney1. I said not such a thing. Stonening is for everybody!
In this thread the following claims are made about the law,
0- It advocate the act presented in the thread.
1- Stoning is only for women.
2- It is the right for the husband to kill his wife for adultery.
3- It is the right for the father to kill his daughter if he think she made adultery (or even for talking to a guy).
4- That talking to men is en ...[text shortened]... y are supported by Islam. While the are clearly a type of adultery.
Who support these claims?
2. I said not such a thing. I said that adultery is a "crime" under the "law" of Sharia.
3. Who said it?
4. Who said it?
5. I explained plainfully this, kindly please check my above mentiond post to twhitehead.
6. Same as 5.
7. I don't know what are you talking about.
Originally posted by black beetleBut again that is not a question of whether an 'eye for an eye' is just, but rather a question of guilt. I am assuming that you are claiming that a drunk driver is not guilty of murder ie his responsibility is reduced. I suspect that if a man committed premeditated murder, you would have no problem with the death penalty, or at least admit that it was reasonably just. I am against the death penalty largely on the grounds that wrongful convictions take place.
I said that nowdays the "an eye for an eye" approach is barbaric anyway: let's suppose that a drunk driver kills a mother and her baby. He must be punished severely, however we are not supposed to let somebody have some malt, get high and run over him.
On the other hand, I moved on and I claimed that adultery is not a crime,
Which is an obviously false claim as you point out later. What you really mean is that you don't think it should be a crime, but that is debatable. It is clearly breach of contract. The reason most countries don't criminalize it is because it mostly affects only one party, and does not result in bodily harm or monetary loss (in most cases).
however it is a "crime" under the "law" of Sharia. So if the adulterer is to be "judged" by a Sharia "court" and finally found "guilty", then he will suffer a death under the most barbaric circumstances.
And I agree that that is barbaric, but that has nothing to do with the 'eye for an eye' rule.
All this approach for me is BS big time and I openly state that I consider everybody who accepts Sharia as a blinded religionist.
Which is also totally false. I can promise you that there are plenty of athiests who think Sharia law is a wonderful thing and plenty of atheists who would quite readily have their spouses stoned to death for adultery. I think you will find similar practices in India and Africa in areas were Hinduism or traditional beliefs prevail even though the belief so not demand such behavior. It has far more to do with culture and education than it has with religion.
Of course I see the Christians which they believe that the adultery is a "crime" as blinded religionists too, but there is at least a difference: no western court will sentence an adulterer to death -and the reason why is that in the West we keep the Church and the Government separated.
Do you? Are you saying that several hundred years ago in Europe when the Church more or less ran several governments that something equivalent to Sharia law was in place? Don't you think the change has more to do with democracy and such like? And speaking of equality, when did women get the vote?
Originally posted by twhitehead1. No, it is obvious that you should assume that the driver is anyway guilty and that he must be kept fully reponsible for his crime. Also he could be sentenced to death in case he had planned his crime, although I am against the death penalty for the same reasons as you.
But again that is not a question of whether an 'eye for an eye' is just, but rather a question of guilt. I am assuming that you are claiming that a drunk driver is not guilty of murder ie his responsibility is reduced. I suspect that if a man committed premeditated murder, you would have no problem with the death penalty, or at least admit that it was rea ...[text shortened]... mocracy and such like? And speaking of equality, when did women get the vote?
2. But I told you that adultery is not a "crime" the way Sharia takes on this issue. In my opinion a divorce is enough, and this is not debetable I reckon -at least not in my country anymore. And I am in full agreement with this view.
3. Of course it has nothing to do with the "eye for an eye" rule. I told you earlier that this is another -a different- claim.
4. I am aware of this fact and I agree, however these atheists are as fanatic as the blinded religionists. And I agree that the religions and the general social mentality are infiltrated by the social dynamics and vice versa. The religions and the societies are not islands, and both of them they interact with our cultural process.
5. Of course I do! The West moved on forward and finally after big struggle entered the status of the democracy, and we Europeans we left the theocratic status long ago. I am talking about today, not about the situation in Europe some centuries ago. The power of the Church nowdays in Europe is not at all similar or equal to the power of Islam and Sharia in several theocratic Muslim countries. Surely I do know that this change has to do more with democracy, which by the way is out of order in the theocratic Muslim countries.
The women got the vote too late -but they got it. So what? By the way, they got it so late because of the partiarchic model which was forwarded the last 30 centuries by Goverment & Religions Corp.
😵
Originally posted by black beetleOn topic, probably:
The women got the vote too late -but they got it. So what? By the way, they got it so late because of the partiarchic model which was forwarded the last 30 centuries by Goverment & Religions Corp.
😵
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-11-19-antiwomen-cabinet-riles-pakistans-activists
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey rrrobie pal,
ok seeing that you will not forward your opinions, i must assume that you hold every individual to be a free moral agent, this fact was established at the nuremberg trials, i provide a following reference for your perusal,
Nuremberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not re ...[text shortened]... ell, if not, then their silence is indicative of their acquiescence and will be taken as such.
I keep myself fully responsible for my actions. I am aware of the fact that I 'm a black beetle on the surface of a tree that goes all the way down in the river to them thunderin falls. I am free to do what I want on my precious beloved tree till I 'll be free at last 😵