It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Violent Religion?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




If the people are unable to see the manipulation between the spiritual teachings of religion, and the brainwashing that goes on, they will not be able to see it elsewhere either. But if/when they come to see it, then they will see it in all things and no longer be deceived.


thank you badmedia. My son read some of your responses and agrees with me that you are rather enlightened in so far as enlightened goes on an individuals journey....

could you explain to me what you said about Jesus sacrifice being "satanic". My earlier threads about a possibility that if Jesus Christ represents the LORD god (Gen 2) not the God of Gen 1, then Jesus Christ as the LORD God commanded the Jews to commit plenty of atrocities in the old testament which is why God asked the LORD God to come to earth in the form of a man and take these sins on his shoulders since he commanded them in the first place..... just a theory.

I just feel any form of human or animal sacrifice is satanic or evil. When I thought of Jesus Christ, as His blood sacrifice is my only exception to the rule, because of my theory that He was atoning Himself possibly for His sin of asking people to do such as what is described in the OT. (As a young Son of God, (the LORD God) he appeared power hungry and Jealous in the OT over his chosen people only (the Israelities). Gods' chosen people are the worlds population... my theory is still being developed...lol.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I havent researched alot of Religions but Scientology by far seems to be pretty violent. By there fair game policy and the harrassment they give out. The government needs to look into this church a little more. Theres definetly some weird things going on behind closed doors.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 

Hard for me to take this seriously.
Do you really believe Bush is of the Lord?
You say it as a question, but how about you saying it yourself.
Say, "Yes, I Believe that George W. Bush is a really good Christian. He is of the Lord and is a follower of the true God and I love him for all the good things he did in office, as a real Christian. He is not an occultist and not a member of Scull and Bones, he is not a member of The Bohemian Grove Club. He was not having male porn stars coming into the white house at midnight on a regular bases. He is not into raping children and human sacrifice, and all those stories are just made up and I would be happy to have him babysit my children overnight."
I have a funny feeling that you want someone to say Christianity is the most violent religion. If you want to use the US as an example, you need to realize not everyone believes Bush is really a Christian. Obama is coming out to let people know he is really Muslim. He can get away with that. Bush would not do well to admit he really worships Satan so you are not going to see him renouncing Jesus in the near future.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by flashesofblue
 


When Jesus is viewed on a sacrifice, then it is the "truth" being killed so that the lie may live. The lie being the false authorities and such of this world. Those who conspired to kill Jesus did so because he (truth) threatened their power(lie) on earth. So all the focus is put onto the death of Jesus as what does the saving. And in this manner, all it saves is the lie.

Where as instead we should look at his life as the thing that saves us. What he did, said and the path he walked. It is by following his example that one is saved.

As he is sinless he doesn't have to be here. He wasn't here to learn the difference between good and evil, he already knew, understood and had the wisdom. But he does it in order to show people the correct way to live, along with giving people understanding on things. To share in his wisdom and so forth. So he does in a way "sacrifice" himself for the sins of the world. That he would do those things simply to try and show people the truth, and face such a punishment just in the hopes that some people will happen to see and understand is a huge sacrifice and takes a ton of grace.

What happens is people think of Jesus as a sacrifice that will forgive their sins. But it is presented as a "free gift", meaning you just have to believe Jesus is "best ever" and it's all good. But they are just focusing on his death as what saves them. Thus, just like above, the truth is being sacrificed so the lie may live. Satanic in nature.

However if we instead focus on his life and example as being what saves us, and we follow in his example, then it is no longer about sacrifices, it's about following and walking the path. Then we are living for and in the truth, rather than in sacrifice and the lie.

Most people quote John 3:16 about being saved. I grew up in the bible belt and went to just about every kind of church you can think when I was younger. They all wanted to save me, and that verse is the only verse I have had memorized since I was a kid. It says:



John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


And that is what is sold, just believe in this. It's a "free gift" to you, just accept this and believe and you are saved. What was never mentioned to me, pointed out and goes against "free gift" theory is:



John 14

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


So, what does it really mean in John 3:16 to believe in him? Believe he is a sacrifice and you are saved in his death, or walking the path and example he gives and following the commandments? Not a free gift, it's a change in life. The rich man could have received a free gift, but Jesus turns him away because the man valued his possessions so much.

Where it says believe in him for John 16, put in the part about what those who believe will do, and see if it doesn't carry abit more meaning and understanding.



Matthew 9

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Sin = mistake, repent = fixing/changing. He does not come to call the righteous, but to those who make mistakes, so they can fix their mistakes. And you do this in his life, not his death. By his example. He dies in order to bring that truth and example to people.

And the lie and manipulation of this world has been to blind people into accepting the idol rather than the understanding. And then as the people have no understanding, they are blind and open for manipulation. They are then lead down the path of death and destruction just like we see in History with the crusades and inquisitions etc.

So, rather than people walking the path of Jesus, they end up walking the path of death and destruction, a path of bring hell on earth, rather than following the path of Jesus. Thus they merely give lip service, but their hearts are far away.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




So, rather than people walking the path of Jesus, they end up walking the path of death and destruction, a path of bring hell on earth, rather than following the path of Jesus. Thus they merely give lip service, but their hearts are far away.


very clearily written. Some say that Jesus did not have to die, it was His way however of making a statement. His decision to die therefore was fundamental to his overall message, leading to His resurection. Only one other historical figure has been known to have been resurected being Lazerus. So that was why I thought Christians were so particular on the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Your writtings were very clear on the walk of Jesus Christ and that is what I try to achieve.

It has been written a thought is as good as a deed... that makes life's walk very disciplined.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jess_Undefined
I havent researched alot of Religions but Scientology by far seems to be pretty violent. By there fair game policy and the harrassment they give out. The government needs to look into this church a little more. Theres definetly some weird things going on behind closed doors.


Excellent example in how the advocacy of abuse/violence delivered through a 'holy text' of a religion, when applied to the real world by it's followers can have a devastating impact.



"ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967 [SP = Suppressive Person a.k.a. critic of Scientology]

"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 21 October 1968, "Cancellation of Fair Game"

"A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965,HCO (Division 1) "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"

"The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing enemy are: 1. Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine). 2. The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups. 3. A few key political figures in the fields of "mental health" and education. 4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations [that] would make us unable to function." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 16 February 1969, "TARGETS, DEFENSE"

"When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia [sic] and bribe the police." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 12 February 1967, "The Responsibilities of Leaders"

"There is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves." - L. Ron Hubbard, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. 7 February 1965, reissued 27 August 1980

source: www.xenu.net...


Here's a page full of expose documentaries on Co$, for those who are interested.

After a thorough review, i think everyone can agree, Co$ should never have been granted tax-exempt status

[edit on 5-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by flashesofblue
 


Well, it's the sins of men that kills him. If man did not sin, then he wouldn't have been murdered. But man's sin kills him.

However, he makes the ultimate statement by doing what he did. He shows that it is better to die, than to try to save yourself by doing evil things. He says - if you try to save yourself, then you will in the process kill yourself. Why? Because if you try to save yourself, then you will likely have to sin in order to do so. And so you wouldn't be walking the path.

Which pretty much blows the christian just war theory out of the water. However, that is exactly the deception used normally to get people to walk the path of death and destruction - fear of their lives. If you don't do these evil things, then you will be killed. So the people war on in the name of "saving themselves".

So we end up with evil vs evil. The greater evil always wins, and so the evil keeps growing and growing over time. Jesus in his death shows that you do not defeat evil with more evil, but by not doing evil things. Even heals the ear that is cut off. He shows that is not the way. And if all the people in the world followed that example, the powers of this world would have nobody to fight their battles.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


And yet, many of those who enter into that religion have good intentions. Thats why I don't think we can define these as "religions being violent".

Men of power who have control over blind/confused/ignorant people, that is what breeds the violence.

Shouldn't we be focusing on the people within Scientology that have done such things, rather than the entire religion. If you go after the individuals, then there are specific actions and such that can be brought out. If you go after the religion itself, then it's just a matter of being thought police. At which point, your religion/belief would become the more violent.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Shouldn't we be focusing on the people within Scientology that have done such things, rather than the entire religion?


Believers/followers of the "holy-text/word-of-god" apply the teachings to their lives and others. What is it about this fundamental fact that you don't understand? You are going to hold the believer responsible for following/practicing their faith/religion?

X10

[edit on 5-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Because it's just a form of collectivism. Grouping people up, and then dismissing and judging based on the group. When you group people up as such and judge/label them based on the group, then you are by default apply things to people which are untrue.

You will be attributing bad things to people for no reason, and good things to others for no reason.

If it's just a matter of "beliefs" as you say, then we should be listing specific beliefs which are bad, rather than the religion itself.

For example, here's a violent belief:

Anyone who disagrees with my beliefs/religon should be killed or punished.

See, I think we can all agree that is a violent belief. But if you just say religion, then you get into many different ways people see things, understand things and so forth. But if we instead focus on the individual beliefs, and the actions of individual people we can get much further, gain more understanding and we aren't "bearing false witness" on people by attributing things to them that are untrue.

Take a look at christians in the crusades. They believed they were saving people by killing them. Thats a pretty violent belief. We should point that out for the evil it is. But if we just say "christians", then we are including many people who are not guilty of doing that. So it is unfair and thus wrong to judge based on groups and collectivism.




[edit on 5-6-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Because it's just a form of collectivism. Grouping people up, and then dismissing and judging based on the group. When you group people up as such and judge/label them based on the group, then you are by default apply things to people which are untrue.


I think i understand the confusion. I will try to explain my position in another way.

The intent of my proposal was to pinpoint the most abusive/violent of all religions. Examples can be taken from believers/followers of these religions to help understand to the extent at which these religions are used to justify their abusive/violent rhetoric. If you interpret this as an attempt to stereotype christians, jews, muslims, scientologists as all being abusive/violent in one way or another... then you have missed my point entirely. Any generalized statements that would lend you to such conclusion should not be taken literally... just like someone say "mankind" shouldn't be taken to mean only men vs women or even to mean everyone.

ie i have been lambasted on many occasions in conversations for stating that "people suck"... obviously i don't mean everyone... but half to a majority... yes

... some figuratively and some literally.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


I understand that, and often do say "Christians" as a generalization as well in the same manner and when I do that I am speaking of the mainstream beliefs. Generally they are beliefs which are held in common among all the sects.

It's just that with religion we can find examples of all of them doing the worse things. It then becomes a question if those examples are a reflection of the religion and understanding itself. And while I don't know all the religions, they are always presented as peaceful and so forth.

But you get preacher types and so forth that manipulate things/people and so the people in that religion end up doing bad things. But as they are manipulating things in order to justify such things, then is it really a matter and reflection of the religion?

I don't think you'll find a single religion that hasn't done awful things. At which point, it just becomes a matter on what we focus on.

I think you are better off dealing with individual violent beliefs.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I don't think you'll find a single religion that hasn't done awful things. At which point, it just becomes a matter on what we focus on.

I think you are better off dealing with individual violent beliefs.


We already have plenty of threads "dealing with individual violent beliefs." This inquiry is by far more interesting and challenging.

We have already found the Most Peaceful Religion... so why can't we find the most abusive/violent of religions? I never said it would be easy. Matter of fact, just for the reasons you have outlined, it will be much harder to determine. You have poured a lot of energy into your attempt to derail or kill this thread. Are you afraid of what we will find?

[edit on 5-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


You have poured a lot of energy into your attempt to derail or kill this thread. Are you afraid of what we will find?
Oh, come on, the rats not running through the maze properly?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Oh, come on, the rats not running through the maze properly?


I have counted 8 posts, if i include yours we can make it 10, attempting to absolve religions part in committing crimes against humanity through it's followers... despite my efforts in pointing out the obvious source of these atrocities. Being cute and calling this thread some sort of science experiment and it's participants rats doesn't contribute anything to the intention of this venture. It's almost as if you guys don't want this investigation to continue. Seems to me that your collective input thus far has been to distract people from this inquiry, all you have accomplised is to encourage a few jesus-freaks to add their religious mumbo jumbo babblings and make me sound like a broken record repeating the purpose and value of this thread.

We have nearly two pages full of posts thus far and Jessica & Kidflash are the only two who have provided any substantial contribution to this inquiry.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 
You just do not want to accept my answer.
The real evil religion is worshiping Lucifer.
You want to pretend that anyone who claims to be Christian, in order to fool people into war, has to put points on the Christian side, even if these particular people are worshiping Satan.
Are you keeping score?
Put one on Satan. Just because it may not be the biggest religion in the world, does not mean they can not have a disproportional influence on events.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Originally posted by badmedia
I don't think you'll find a single religion that hasn't done awful things. At which point, it just becomes a matter on what we focus on.

I think you are better off dealing with individual violent beliefs.


We already have plenty of threads "dealing with individual violent beliefs." This inquiry is by far more interesting and challenging.

We have already found the Most Peaceful Religion... so why can't we find the most abusive/violent of religions? I never said it would be easy. Matter of fact, just for the reasons you have outlined, it will be much harder to determine. You have poured a lot of energy into your attempt to derail or kill this thread. Are you afraid of what we will find?


I think I have done a pretty good job explaining why I think these kinds of topics are silly and how it promotes ignorance.

I don't even belong to a religion and I think religion in itself is "evil" as it teaches people what to accept rather than how to understand, but that doesn't change the low level of thinking required in this thread.

Since you now wish to to accuse me of trying to derail your thread or "kill" it and that I'm "afraid" of what we will find, then there isn't too much to say to you. Have fun debating your own assumptions, as that is all this thread is anyway.

Good day.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ok in a nutshell ...

There is no link between religion and the application of the religion in peoples lives... and to say otherwise is a silly waste of time.

I get it... i don't agree with it, but you have made your position abundantly clear.

Thank you for your input... but this thread needs to evolve.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Now to get back to the task at hand... the business of determining the most violent/abusive religion?

Maybe a good place to start would be with the largest segment of our populous that has been historically and still presently in most countries still victim to prejudice... and i think islam and christainity may have a tie for being the most sexist. Proof being in the word of god and those who follow the word of god to the letter.



1 Corinthians 11:3

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
(Head of every woman is the man)

1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
(Woman to be silent in church. A woman is not to speak in church)

Ephesians 5:22 - 25

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(Wives must submit themselves to their husband, afterall he is the head of the wife)

Colossians 3:18

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
(Wives submit to their husband -- the Lord expects it)

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
(Women not to wear braided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array.
Women must learn in silence. Women are not to teach and not have
authority over men. Women must be silent. Adam was created first,
then Eve. A woman was deceived, but Adam was not deceived)

Romans 7:2

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
(woman bound to her husband for life)

Titus 2:3 - 5

3 The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
(Women to obey their own husbands)

1 Peter 3:1 -3

1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1 Peter 3:5 -7

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Genesis 3:16

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
(Women will be ruled by men)

Leviticus 12:2

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Leviticus 12:5

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
(Woman unclean for 7 days if she gives birth to a man child.
She is unclean for 14 days to 66 days if she gives birth to woman child)

Esther 1:22

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.
Job 25:4

4 How then can man be justified with God? or , how can he be clean [that is] born of a woman?
(Any man born of a woman is unclean)

Ecclesiastes 7:26

26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.
( Women can be source of evil for men. Men source of evil for
women? -- doesn't say)

Deuteronomy 22:5

5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
( Women not to wear pants, nor men to wear dresses)

1 Corinthians 11:14

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(Men not to wear long hair)


Now for the quran's turn at bat... in beating women down:



Sura 4: 35. Men are guardians over women because ALLAH has made some of them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with ALLAH's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely, ALLAH is High and Great.

4: 4. And if you fear that you will not be just in dealing with the orphans, then marry of other women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not be able to do justice, then marry only one or marry what your right hand possess. Thus it is more likely that you will not do injustice.

Sura 2:222. And marry not idolatrous women until they believe; even a believing bond women is better than an idolatress, although she may please you. And give not believing women in marriage to idolaters until they believe; even a believing slave is better than an idolater, although he may please you. These call to Fire, but ALLAH calls to Heaven and to forgiveness by HIS will. And HE makes HIS Signs clear to the people that they may remember.

2:223. And they ask thee concerning menstruation. Say, `It is a harmful thing, so keep away from women during menstruation, and go not in unto them until they are clean. But when they have cleansed themselves, go in unto them as ALLAH has commanded you. ALLAH loves those who keep themselves clean.'

2:229. And the divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what ALLAH has created in their wombs, if they believe in ALLAH and the Last Day; and their husbands have the greater right to take them back during that period, provided they desire reconciliation. And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a degree of advantage above them. And ALLAH is Mighty and Wise.

4: 12. ALLAH commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females; but if their be females only, numbering more than two, then they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased leave; and if there be one, she shall have the half. And his parents each of them a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a child, but if he have no child and his parents be his heirs, then his mother shall have a third; and if he have brothers and sisters, then his mother shall have a sixth, after the payment of any bequests he may have bequeathed or of debts. Your fathers and your children; you know not which of them is more beneficent to you. This fixing of portions is from ALLAH. Surely, ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.

4:177. They ask thee for a decision. Say, `ALLAH gives HIS decision concerning `Kalálah. If a man dies leaving no child and he has a sister, then she shall have half of what he leaves; and he shall inherit her if she has no child. But if there be two sisters, then they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves. And if the heirs be brethren - both men and women - then the male shall have as much as the portion of two females. ALLAH explains this to you lest you go astray and ALLAH knows all things well.'


[edit on 6-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
So how do these scriptures filter through in this equation? How can a religion be held responsible for domestic and sexual abuse you ask?

When the Saudi Court Approves Pedophilia, one has to ask how this is possible in 2009. Well the answer is actually pretty simple, when you have the union of church and state, a societies ability to evolve is put on pause.

And here in the states we can find examples of girls being exchanged as if they were cattle/currency in the polygamist circles of Mormonism.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join