Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Other religions
cymrudynnion

Muslim/Islamic weddings

A question for my fellow posters. Now admittedly I would have put this on R&E where I know there are some Muslims posting but as I am banned thanks to a coniferous growth I can't.
So oh wise and wonderful Sages of ngl, can anyone tell me what the Rules are in Islam concerning weddings? I am particularly interested in the time of day when they can be "carried out" especially in countries where sharia is prevelant.
Leonard James

Re: Muslim/Islamic weddings

cymrudynnion wrote:
A question for my fellow posters. Now admittedly I would have put this on R&E where I know there are some Muslims posting but as I am banned thanks to a coniferous growth I can't.
So oh wise and wonderful Sages of ngl, can anyone tell me what the Rules are in Islam concerning weddings? I am particularly interested in the time of day when they can be "carried out" especially in countries where sharia is prevelant.

D. Time of Marriage Ceremony

Though basically marriage is allowed at all times, there are some days on which marriage is not recommended; some of these are based on ahadith and some on cultural, historical reasons.

Generally, we can categorize these days into three: (a) There are some ahadith which say that it is makruh (not recommended) to have a marriage ceremony on the days when the moon is in the constellation of Scorpio (this is known as al-qamar fil aqrab or qamar dar aqrab), during the last two or three days of the lunar months, and on Wednesdays. (b) There are certain days of the Islamic calendar which have become associated with the early events of the Islamic history; for example, the 10th of Muharram is the day of mourning for the massacre at Karbala or the day of the Prophet's death in Safar, etc. Since such days are commemorated by the Muslims as days of mourning, it is socially and, to some extent, religiously not recommended to have a marriage ceremony on such days.3

The Shia Ithna Ashari (Twelver Shias), especially in India and Pakistan, rarely perform marriage ceremony between the 1st of Muharram and the 8th of Rabi al-Awwal as this period includes the mourning days of Muharram culminating in the martyrdom of Imam Askari (a.s.). The 9th Rabi al-Awwal is celebrated as Eid-e-Zahra.

If there is a need, however, Nikah, can be performed at any time.

http://www.al-islam.org/marriage-handbook/6.htm
cymrudynnion

Thanks for the detailed reply Leonard its appreciated.
I actually want the time of day rather than Holy Days when it is not permitted. I have it on the grapevine that there is an atempt by the Government of G.B. to alter the Marriage Act 1947 the clause stating time of day. As I understand the Act a man and woman can only marry between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm or Natural Light hours. It would appwear this is being tagged onto another Act to get it removed and I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
As I understand the Act a man and woman can only marry between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm


This is true.  But remember, this is only to fulfil English Law when it comes to a marriage contract.  As far as I'm aware this is purely a compulsory 'dotting of 'i's and crossing of 't's for people of faith who want their union recognised by British authorities.
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
Thanks for the detailed reply Leonard its appreciated.
I actually want the time of day rather than Holy Days when it is not permitted. I have it on the grapevine that there is an atempt by the Government of G.B. to alter the Marriage Act 1947 the clause stating time of day. As I understand the Act a man and woman can only marry between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm or Natural Light hours. It would appwear this is being tagged onto another Act to get it removed and I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.

Hi Cym,

I consider it quite daft to try to restrict the marriage ceremony to certain hours. If all participants are willing to take part, including the officiator, and nobody is prejudiced by it, why should anybody stop them?
cymrudynnion

It is there for both canonical and English Law.
Firstly to ensure both parties getting married recognise each other and secondly to ensure the Priest can be sure it isn't a same sex marriage.
A few years ago my eldest son got married, hat the time he and his fiancee had an 18 month old son who acted as Page Boy. There were several times during the service that my grandson started running around making a noise and interupet the service. Each time (three of them) the vicar stopped the service to allow my grandson to be quietened so that my son and daughter in law could cthen concentrate on what they were doing.
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
It is there for both canonical and English Law.


People of other faiths, and you were asking specifically about Islam, don't recognise, nor come under Canonical Law: but in order to have their union recognised in this country then they must abide by English Law, and therefore are forced to go through the system in order to get the Certificate.
Leonard James

cymrudynnion wrote:
It is there for both canonical and English Law..

The fact that such a law exists is no indication that it is a sensible law.  Laws are made for the guidance of wise men, and the strict obedience of fools.
Quote:
Firstly to ensure both parties getting married recognise each other and secondly to ensure the Priest can be sure it isn't a same sex marriage.

You will note that I said "If all participants are willing to take part, including the officiator, and nobody is prejudiced by it"
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.


Well it seems it is not for that reason at all. No-one has come up with anything in Islam which says they have to get married in the dark or anything like that. Seems you had come up with a bit of wild guesswork, and then hoped you might have something to get annoyed about.

Were you trying to stir up one of these "it's all because of the Muslims" rumours?

Do you have some reason for wishing people not to get married in the evening?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.


Well it seems it is not for that reason at all. No-one has come up with anything in Islam which says they have to get married in the dark or anything like that. Seems you had come up with a bit of wild guesswork, and then hoped you might have something to get annoyed about.

Were you trying to stir up one of these "it's all because of the Muslims" rumours?

Do you have some reason for wishing people not to get married in the evening?
I had no idea about the restriction on time and daylight hours until a few weeks ago. I don't comment on the doctrine of Islam as I don't understand it. The only area I object to is clothing and the use of Burquas etc. If the items are worn for religious requirements then let them be worn in the Place of Worship and not on the street unless by prior arrangement. I do not wear my chior robes in public unless requested to at the Rememnbrance Sunday service for example. If on the other hand Islamic garb is worn because it is suitable in equatorial countries then discard it in Britain as the climate is totally different.
The Boyg

cymrudynnion wrote:
The only area I object to is clothing and the use of Burquas etc. If the items are worn for religious requirements then let them be worn in the Place of Worship and not on the street unless by prior arrangement. I do not wear my chior robes in public unless requested to at the Rememnbrance Sunday service for example.


But it's your choice whether or not to wear it in public. Why shouldn't they be allowed to wear what they want to in public (within the ever changing norms of decency)?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.


Well it seems it is not for that reason at all. No-one has come up with anything in Islam which says they have to get married in the dark or anything like that. Seems you had come up with a bit of wild guesswork, and then hoped you might have something to get annoyed about.

Were you trying to stir up one of these "it's all because of the Muslims" rumours?

Do you have some reason for wishing people not to get married in the evening?
I had no idea about the restriction on time and daylight hours until a few weeks ago. I don't comment on the doctrine of Islam as I don't understand it. The only area I object to is clothing and the use of Burquas etc. If the items are worn for religious requirements then let them be worn in the Place of Worship and not on the street unless by prior arrangement. I do not wear my chior robes in public unless requested to at the Rememnbrance Sunday service for example. If on the other hand Islamic garb is worn because it is suitable in equatorial countries then discard it in Britain as the climate is totally different.


Hang on hang on this is a complete red herring. Don't change the subject!

You weren't thinking about burquas or any such thing.

You heard that they were going to change the rule to make it legal to get married in the evening, and you wondered whether that was because of Muslims.

Why did you wonder this? Was your 'query' really just rumour-mongering? Do you have some reason to wish the prohibition against evening weddings to remain in force?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I am wondering if it is to satisfy our Islamic friends.


Well it seems it is not for that reason at all. No-one has come up with anything in Islam which says they have to get married in the dark or anything like that. Seems you had come up with a bit of wild guesswork, and then hoped you might have something to get annoyed about.

Were you trying to stir up one of these "it's all because of the Muslims" rumours?

Do you have some reason for wishing people not to get married in the evening?
I had no idea about the restriction on time and daylight hours until a few weeks ago. I don't comment on the doctrine of Islam as I don't understand it. The only area I object to is clothing and the use of Burquas etc. If the items are worn for religious requirements then let them be worn in the Place of Worship and not on the street unless by prior arrangement. I do not wear my chior robes in public unless requested to at the Rememnbrance Sunday service for example. If on the other hand Islamic garb is worn because it is suitable in equatorial countries then discard it in Britain as the climate is totally different.


Hang on hang on this is a complete red herring. Don't change the subject!

You weren't thinking about burquas or any such thing.

You heard that they were going to change the rule to make it legal to get married in the evening, and you wondered whether that was because of Muslims.

Why did you wonder this? Was your 'query' really just rumour-mongering? Do you have some reason to wish the prohibition against evening weddings to remain in force?
No red herrings at all just answering a question posed to me. No I understand there is a section to an act quietly going through Parliament that will alter the wording of the marriage act and take out the reference to time restrictions. I'm asking if this is to do with something Islamic or soemthing else.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
I understand there is a section to an act quietly going through Parliament that will alter the wording of the marriage act and take out the reference to time restrictions. I'm asking if this is to do with something Islamic or soemthing else.


It is clear from my previous posts that I already know this. I am asking you WHY you think this might have anything to do with Islam. (Don't say "I just wondered" - you could as easily wonder whether it had anything to do with Belgian fishmongers). You must have had a reason to connect it with Islam...

which leads me to the second of the two questions which you are dodging - were you simply rumour-mongering?

And finally - do you have any reason to oppose the legalisation of evening weddings?
IvyOwl

I had no idea about the legal restrictions on the time of weddings. What a strange law.

I'd imagine that a change would benefit a lot of people. So even if the prime motivator to change is is due to the need to accomodate our Muslim citizens so what?

There are a lot of old laws languishing on the statute book. Maybe it's part of an ongoing process to tidy them up a wee bit?

IO
cyberman

IvyOwl wrote:
even if the prime motivator to change is is due to the need to accomodate our Muslim citizens so what?


But..don't give currency to the idea that this has anything at all to do with Muslims.

This is a completely bogus notion which cym has dreamed up out of nowhere and put about for reasons which he seems ashamed to discuss.
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
even if the prime motivator to change is is due to the need to accomodate our Muslim citizens so what?


But..don't give currency to the idea that this has anything at all to do with Muslims.

This is a completely bogus notion which cym has dreamed up out of nowhere and put about for reasons which he seems ashamed to discuss.
Not at all Cyber. As far as I am aware there is a Marriage Act in this country put whichever year after it you wish. I have been told by a Solicitor friend of mine that there is a Bill going through Parliament that has as its final codicil a change to the part of the Marriage Act that states marriages must take place between 9.00am and 6.00pm. All I have asked everyone is are they aware of any time restriction in Islam and for that matter any other recognised Faith that is practised in this country.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
even if the prime motivator to change is is due to the need to accomodate our Muslim citizens so what?


But..don't give currency to the idea that this has anything at all to do with Muslims.

This is a completely bogus notion which cym has dreamed up out of nowhere and put about for reasons which he seems ashamed to discuss.
Not at all Cyber. As far as I am aware there is a Marriage Act in this country put whichever year after it you wish. I have been told by a Solicitor friend of mine that there is a Bill going through Parliament that has as its final codicil a change to the part of the Marriage Act that states marriages must take place between 9.00am and 6.00pm. All I have asked everyone is are they aware of any time restriction in Islam and for that matter any other recognised Faith that is practised in this country.


And I have asked you why you have raised the question of any connection with Islam, and again you have shown yourself to be too ashamed to answer my question.

And for the record, there is another attempt here to cover your tracks. You didn't ask about "Islam and for that matter any other recognised Faith". You only asked about Islam. Why did you ask about Islam?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
even if the prime motivator to change is is due to the need to accomodate our Muslim citizens so what?


But..don't give currency to the idea that this has anything at all to do with Muslims.

This is a completely bogus notion which cym has dreamed up out of nowhere and put about for reasons which he seems ashamed to discuss.
Not at all Cyber. As far as I am aware there is a Marriage Act in this country put whichever year after it you wish. I have been told by a Solicitor friend of mine that there is a Bill going through Parliament that has as its final codicil a change to the part of the Marriage Act that states marriages must take place between 9.00am and 6.00pm. All I have asked everyone is are they aware of any time restriction in Islam and for that matter any other recognised Faith that is practised in this country.


And I have asked you why you have raised the question of any connection with Islam, and again you have shown yourself to be too ashamed to answer my question.

And for the record, there is another attempt here to cover your tracks. You didn't ask about "Islam and for that matter any other recognised Faith". You only asked about Islam. Why did you ask about Islam?
From a previous post i see quite clearly I did ask about Islam and any other recognised Faith. Secondly I am never ashamed to answer any question. From your answers cyber I take it you havbe no idea either.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
I am never ashamed to answer any question.


Then answer this one - what made you link this marriage law story to Islam?

cymrudynnion wrote:
From your answers cyber I take it you havbe no idea either.


Have no idea about what? About why you are pretending that this story has anything to do with Islam? Oh, I have an idea about that alright. I have a good idea what kind of person would want to drum up suspicion that the presence of Islam is changing our laws.

Or about whether Islam proscribes the time of day at which wedding ceremonies can occur? It doesn't.

Now answer my question. Why did you link this story with Islam?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
I am never ashamed to answer any question.


Then answer this one - what made you link this marriage law story to Islam?

cymrudynnion wrote:
From your answers cyber I take it you havbe no idea either.


Have no idea about what? About why you are pretending that this story has anything to do with Islam? Oh, I have an idea about that alright. I have a good idea what kind of person would want to drum up suspicion that the presence of Islam is changing our laws.

Or about whether Islam proscribes the time of day at which wedding ceremonies can occur? It doesn't.

Now answer my question. Why did you link this story with Islam?
At last, thank you for supplying the answer I was looking for  para 3 "it doesn't". I don't have to drum up any suspicion that laws are being altered to satisfy Islam, they are or at least there are attempts to.
cyberman

cym, your shame still prevents you from answering my question -

Why did you link this story with Islam?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cym, your shame still prevents you from answering my question -

Why did you link this story with Islam?
Cyber I have absolutely no idea whatsoever of any "shame" you are eluding to.
Usually any contentious alteration/amendmenmt of Law is, if possible, attached to an innocent looking piece of legislation. As far as i am aware and especially in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.
i am informed there is a small piece of legislation tyravelling through parliament at the  moment to amend the hours by which persons can marry. I have asked if there are restrictions in islam you have answered,no, end of O/P.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
I have asked if there are restrictions in islam


I know you have.
I have asked why you linked this story with Islam, and you have still not explained this.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


For example......?
cyberman

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


For example......?


Cym? That enough for you to come up with an example or two of these bucketfuls of concessions?

(Is it bucketfuls or buckets full?)

Buckets full of them - should be easy peasy to produce a few examples - maybe one bucket full? Half a bucket? Go on, give me half of one bucket full of concessions given to Muslims in your neck of the woods by the authorities.

What's half a bucket? Four or five concessions?
cyberman

Start with just one, cym. Give us one example of one concession made on demand to Islam by the authorities in your neck of the woods. We will leave the bucketfuls for now. Start with one.

Go on.
cyberman

See how thoroughly ashamed of himself cym is. So he should be!
cyberman

cym? You there cym?
Leonard James

Even a windbag must re-inflate occasionally.
cyberman

Cym has had nearly a week now to think about the concessions "by the bucketful" which are granted to Muslims in his neck of the woods, by 'the authorities' no less. Still nothing.

Also no answer as to why he linked this marriage story to Islam in the first place.

Obviously just a bigot trying to whip up malice and ill-feeling. And like all bigots, he is ashamed to let the light of day onto his thoughts. Can't believe this chap masquerades as a Christian! He is ashamed to have been caught out in a downright lie, yet is unrepentant.

(I wrote something else first then changed it to 'chap').
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
Cym has had nearly a week now to think about the concessions "by the bucketful" which are granted to Muslims in his neck of the woods, by 'the authorities' no less. Still nothing.

Also no answer as to why he linked this marriage story to Islam in the first place.

Obviously just a bigot trying to whip up malice and ill-feeling. And like all bigots, he is ashamed to let the light of day onto his thoughts. Can't believe this chap masquerades as a Christian! He is ashamed to have been caught out in a downright lie, yet is unrepentant.

(I wrote something else first then changed it to 'chap').
A week how gracious of you.  I have already told you why I mentioned islam earlier in the thread. I never say i am a Christian please reread my posts on teh subject and as for being ashamed.. that is the best laugh yet.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Cym has had nearly a week now to think about the concessions "by the bucketful" which are granted to Muslims in his neck of the woods, by 'the authorities' no less. Still nothing.

Also no answer as to why he linked this marriage story to Islam in the first place.

Obviously just a bigot trying to whip up malice and ill-feeling. And like all bigots, he is ashamed to let the light of day onto his thoughts. Can't believe this chap masquerades as a Christian! He is ashamed to have been caught out in a downright lie, yet is unrepentant.

(I wrote something else first then changed it to 'chap').
A week how gracious of you.  I have already told you why I mentioned islam earlier in the thread. I never say i am a Christian please reread my posts on teh subject and as for being ashamed.. that is the best laugh yet.


Sorry if I wrongly identified you as someone who purports to be a Christian.

So, if you are not ashamed, where are the answers?
Tell us about these concessions to Islam which you say are granted by the bucketful by the authorities in your neck of the woods?Or, are you too ashamed of your lie to reply?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
as for being ashamed.. that is the best laugh yet.


Yes, that's true. We all find you quite funny.

Are you able to produce examples of these concessions which are granted by the bucket load to Muslims by the authorities in your neck of the woods, cym?
Or does your shame still prevent you from addressing the reality of the fact that you have told a lie for shameful reasons?

So, what you gonna do? Admit you lied, bury your head in the sand, or produce evidence to back up your claim?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples
SceptiKarl

cym  mentions marriage laws and Islam. How about divorce laws and Islam? Why does the father always get custody of the kids? Not according to English law, naturally, but according to Sharia law. As for stoning adulterers, well both Christianity and Islam agree on that, .... according to the holy books mind you! And we all know who wrote them, don't we?

(doh)
Ketty

SceptiKarl wrote:
As for stoning adulterers, well both Christianity and Islam agree on that, ....




There is NOTHING in Christ's message about stoning anyone for anything.  So your message is either a deliberate lie, or you need to be re-educated on what you think the Gospel of Christ Jesus is all about.   I hope it's not a deliberate lie, or propagating lies, but just a lack of understanding.
Honey 56

Ketty wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
As for stoning adulterers, well both Christianity and Islam agree on that, ....




There is NOTHING in Christ's message about stoning anyone for anything.  So your message is either a deliberate lie, or you need to be re-educated on what you think the Gospel of Christ Jesus is all about.   I hope it's not a deliberate lie, or propagating lies, but just a lack of understanding.


Agreed Ketty,

Only repentance and forgiveness, Jesus stepped in and stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman.

Many comments on Christianity either come from misinformation,ignorance or a deliberate twisting of truth and we need to stand up for the truth.
Well done Ketty.  

Honey
Leonard James

Forgive me for raining on your parade, but that only saved one adulterous woman. What he should have done was forbid the stoning of anybody, pointing out that it was a barbaric and merciless punishment.
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Forgive me for raining on your parade, but that only saved one adulterous woman. What he should have done was forbid the stoning of anybody, pointing out that it was a barbaric and merciless punishment.


Hello leonard,  

There were/are many barbaric and merciless punishments carried out for seemingly trivial offences and some that are not even considered offences according to the law these days, especially in less enlightened societies.
But we as Christians have no excuses for allowing this to continue.

Jesus was a man living in an occupied territory, His words did not mean  a great deal to the unbelievers then, as they still do not today.

But his words summed it up perfectly here.....

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Christians throughout history have been and are still, instrumental in working to have many unjust and barbaric practices abolished, even amongst their own 'believers' as well as in the world generally.

The bible teaches us, to protect and care for those less fortunate, to abide by the law of the land, to live in peace with our neighbours and to fight against injustices.

As we are all able to access God's word and Jesus' teaching now, the believers are without excuses.

Honey.
cyberman

SceptiKarl wrote:
As for stoning adulterers, well both Christianity and Islam agree on that, .... according to the holy books mind you!
(doh)


Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?

Is this another example of someone simply seeing something in the Bible and declaring that that means it is a feature of Christianity? "Christians don't eat pork!" "Christians don't pray unless they have a hat on!" etc.

Now Karl will moan about that fact that he thinks we should condone stoning, and he will ignore the fact that we don't. It seems that facts and evidence do not mean much to some of the "new atheists". (Now he will type "Oh the irony", and think he has addressed that point!).
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:

Hello leonard,  

There were/are many barbaric and merciless punishments carried out for seemingly trivial offences and some that are not even considered offences according to the law these days, especially in less enlightened societies.

Yes, Honey, and I hope you will forgive me for pointing out that God is the source of it all.

He allegedly gave us freewill (the source of all the evils) because he didn't want a load of robots all doing the right thing. However, he knew the terrible suffering that this was going to entail, yet went ahead with it because that is what he wanted.

Monumentally selfish, wasn't it?  
Honey 56

Leonard James wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:

Hello leonard,  

There were/are many barbaric and merciless punishments carried out for seemingly trivial offences and some that are not even considered offences according to the law these days, especially in less enlightened societies.

Yes, Honey, and I hope you will forgive me for pointing out that God is the source of it all.

He allegedly gave us freewill (the source of all the evils) because he didn't want a load of robots all doing the right thing. However, he knew the terrible suffering that this was going to entail, yet went ahead with it because that is what he wanted.

Monumentally selfish, wasn't it?  


Would you like to be forced to live under God's laws and decrees, if you can answer yes to that, you have a point!

We are all at liberty to live our lives as we see fit, (provided it doesn't contavene any laws we have to abide by) We can choose to obey and serve God or not, would you have it any other way?

Honey  
gone

ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.
Honey 56

Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Would you like to be forced to live under God's laws and decrees, if you can answer yes to that, you have a point!

What a strange question! If I were programmed to live in a certain way, I wouldn't know I had any other option, would I? I would certainly prefer to live in a system where people weren't able to ill-treat others.

Quote:
We are all at liberty to live our lives as we see fit, (provided it doesn't contavene any laws we have to abide by) We can choose to obey and serve God or not, would you have it any other way?

Yes, because free will to ill-treat others shouldn't be an option. Believing in God and following his rules would be a small price to pay to be free of it.

But I repeat, if I were programmed to do just that I wouldn't be aware of any other way to live!
Leonard James

Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?

Many of us don't find it difficult, in fact I would say the majority of people abide by the law, simply because we are a social species.
gone

Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?


What difference does that make, I don't get your point? Anyway not all humans find the sensible ones hard to abide by. We don't ALL murder, steal, lie and cheat on our partners, gay and straight.
Ketty

Leonard James wrote:
Forgive me for raining on your parade, but that only saved one adulterous woman. What he should have done was forbid the stoning of anybody, pointing out that it was a barbaric and merciless punishment.


He did Lennie.  Did you miss the bit about 'let he who is without sin, cast the first stone'?  He may not have used the language you would prefer, or say in the words you would have used, but nonetheless He said it perfectly for those who have ears to hear.  He also commands those who have ears to hear to love their neighbour as they love themselves, the natural consequence being they will not stone anyone for anything.
Leonard James

Ketty wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Forgive me for raining on your parade, but that only saved one adulterous woman. What he should have done was forbid the stoning of anybody, pointing out that it was a barbaric and merciless punishment.


He did Lennie.  Did you miss the bit about 'let he who is without sin, cast the first stone'?  He may not have used the language you would prefer, or say in the words you would have used, but nonetheless He said it perfectly for those who have ears to hear.  He also commands those who have ears to hear to love their neighbour as they love themselves, the natural consequence being they will not stone anyone for anything.

Hi Ket,

That is even worse, then! "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is to say that only those free of sin have the right to punish miscreants ... i.e., nobody. Thank goodness nobody actually took it to mean that.  
Honey 56

Willow wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?


What difference does that make, I don't get your point? Anyway not all humans find the sensible ones hard to abide by. We don't ALL murder, steal, lie and cheat on our partners, gay and straight.


God's law and commands are not all about what we can't do Willow, what about all the things we are expected to do and fall short of?
cymrudynnion

Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.
Which of the 10 Commandments isn't laudable?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples


Did that.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&am...c66c1527&biw=1024&bih=571

Can't see any examples.

Did you simply make it up?
gone

Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?


What difference does that make, I don't get your point? Anyway not all humans find the sensible ones hard to abide by. We don't ALL murder, steal, lie and cheat on our partners, gay and straight.


God's law and commands are not all about what we can't do Willow, what about all the things we are expected to do and fall short of?


Such as? Not that the deity is in any position to make demands on us humans as even the worst of us can give it a run for its money in the decency stakes!
cymrudynnion

Willow wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Willow wrote:
ALL so called 'God's laws' are a human invention, imo. Some of the ten commandments are laudable, some aren't.


If that is true, and God's laws were invented by human beings, why do human beings find it so difficult to abide by them?


What difference does that make, I don't get your point? Anyway not all humans find the sensible ones hard to abide by. We don't ALL murder, steal, lie and cheat on our partners, gay and straight.


God's law and commands are not all about what we can't do Willow, what about all the things we are expected to do and fall short of?


Such as? Not that the deity is in any position to make demands on us humans as even the worst of us can give it a run for its money in the decency stakes!
And which of the 10 Commandments aren't laudable?
Shaker

cymrudynnion wrote:
And which of the 10 Commandments aren't laudable?

1 to 4 for certain (irrelevant to atheists - though needless to say all of them are, given their alleged source); 5 and 6 admit of rational exceptions so can't be considered entirely laudable; 7 is a matter for the individual conscience; 8, see 5 & 6; 9, see 8, 5 & 6; 10, see 7.

That disposes of pretty well all of them as far as I can see.

Frankly, if you were looking for a code of human behaviour to produce a full and rounded, flourishing ethically-driven human life, you'd do better to look to Zippy and George from Rainbow than the Hebrew God.
cymrudynnion

Shaker wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
And which of the 10 Commandments aren't laudable?

1 to 4 for certain (irrelevant to atheists - though needless to say all of them are, given their alleged source); 5 and 6 admit of rational exceptions so can't be considered entirely laudable; 7 is a matter for the individual conscience; 8, see 5 & 6; 9, see 8, 5 & 6; 10, see 7.

That disposes of pretty well all of them as far as I can see.

Frankly, if you were looking for a code of human behaviour to produce a full and rounded, flourishing ethically-driven human life, you'd do better to look to Zippy and George from Rainbow than the Hebrew God.
I find it amazing that athiests find time to respond to questions such as this mind you your response is hilarious
cyberman

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples


Did that.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&am...c66c1527&biw=1024&bih=571

Can't see any examples.

Did you simply make it up?


cym.. Where can I find these bucketloads of concessions? I tried your google idea, but no luck.
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples


Did that.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&am...c66c1527&biw=1024&bih=571

Can't see any examples.

Did you simply make it up?


cym.. Where can I find these bucketloads of concessions? I tried your google idea, but no luck.
Friday might be interesting
cymrudynnion

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples


Did that.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&am...c66c1527&biw=1024&bih=571

Can't see any examples.

Did you simply make it up?


cym.. Where can I find these bucketloads of concessions? I tried your google idea, but no luck.
Friday might be interesting
It now looks like the I.O.C. have capitulated and dispite all the advice on Healthn and safety grounds it loklks like they will allow the saudi athlete to compete in Judo wearing a hijab. This should be interesting.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Can you give any examples of this occurring, cym?
Certainly "google" South Wales Argus and you will see examples


Did that.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&am...c66c1527&biw=1024&bih=571

Can't see any examples.

Did you simply make it up?


cym.. Where can I find these bucketloads of concessions? I tried your google idea, but no luck.
Friday might be interesting
It now looks like the I.O.C. have capitulated and dispite all the advice on Healthn and safety grounds it loklks like they will allow the saudi athlete to compete in Judo wearing a hijab. This should be interesting.


So, you have a guess about one concession which may or may not be granted in the future, not in the area covered by the South Wales Argus, or your neck of the woods.

Thanks for that.

Now, can you give any single example of any one of the bucketfuls of concession granted by the authorities to Islam in your neck of the woods? Or were you simply lying in order to drum up intolerance, like the good little non-christian Anglican you are?
cyberman

Any examples yet, cym, you *** Edited by Lexi***
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
As far as i am aware and especially in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Fucking liar
SceptiKarl

cyberman:

Quote:
Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?


Well maybe not most "modern Christians", but yes!

Quote:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24


Yeah, I know it's about as stupid as killing witches, but there it is in the inerrant word of God!
Leonard James

SceptiKarl wrote:
cyberman:

Quote:
Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?


Well maybe not most "modern Christians", but yes!

Quote:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24


Yeah, I know it's about as stupid as killing witches, but there it is in the inerrant word of God!

Ah, but you forgot the get-out clause, Karl. That was for the Jews, not the Christians.  
cyberman

SceptiKarl wrote:
cyberman:

Quote:
Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?


Well maybe not most "modern Christians", but yes!



As you know, a quote from the Bible does not equal a Christian principle. We eat pork etc etc

Please provide evidence that any Christian practices the stoning of adulterers. NOT biblical quotes that make you think we SHOULD do so, but evidence of it actually happening.
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
Quote:
Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?

Well maybe not most "modern Christians", but yes!


When and where have Christians stoned adulterers to death Karl?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any examples of this cym, or are you just lying?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Any evidence of this, or are you just a desperately sad liar?
cyberman

cyberman wrote:
SceptiKarl wrote:
cyberman:

Quote:
Karl, are you under the impression that Christians either practise or condone the stoning of adulterers?


Well maybe not most "modern Christians", but yes!



As you know, a quote from the Bible does not equal a Christian principle. We eat pork etc etc

Please provide evidence that any Christian practices the stoning of adulterers. NOT biblical quotes that make you think we SHOULD do so, but evidence of it actually happening.


Any evidence of this, or are you just a desperately sad liar?
Powwow

Scepti,
You are pulling verses out of the Bible and using them out of context. Christ fulfilled the law and if you read John chapter 8, you will discover Christ's answer to the stoning of adulterers. This is the Christian position. As you are no such thing, I can understand your complete and total ignorance about it.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Scepti,
You are pulling verses out of the Bible and using them out of context. .


He is also lying about the behaviour of Christians, regardless of what he is doing with the Bible.
Powwow

Maybe he hated Sunday school?
Ketty

pow wow wrote:
Christ fulfilled the law


Yes and Amen!

Quote:
and if you read John chapter 8, you will discover Christ's answer to the stoning of adulterers.


cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any evidence of this occurring, you intolerant bigot?
Lexilogio

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any evidence of this occurring, you intolerant bigot?


This is not the Bear Pit. Personal insults are not acceptable here.
cyberman

Lexilogio wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any evidence of this occurring, you intolerant bigot?


This is not the Bear Pit. Personal insults are not acceptable here.


It was meant more as an observation than an insult. But OK, I won't call him an intolerant bigot any more.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any examples to back up this claim?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
As far as i am aware and especially in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any examples of this, cym? I mean, you wouldn't want people to think you are a mindless lying bigot, would you?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
I am never ashamed to answer any question.


cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


You are rightly hiding away in self disgust at having descended to such appalling dishonesty, and for such low reasons.

If you have even the slightest shadow of a backbone you would address your folly.

Slink away intolerant little man. Back into the cold damp darkness which you inhabit.
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


An interesting claim. Do you by any chance have any evidence to back it up? Or is it a figment of your imagination?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


Do you have any evidence of this, cym? Or are you "ducking" the issue?
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


So - these bucketfuls of concessions are in fact not a concession at all. Just like anyone else, a party of Muslims were allowed to hire a pool for a private event.

You are a disgraceful liar, and a bigot.
cymrudynnion

cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


So - these bucketfuls of concessions are in fact not a concession at all. Just like anyone else, a party of Muslims were allowed to hire a pool for a private event.

You are a disgraceful liar, and a bigot.
And you are responding to the wrong person
gone

Cymru is a unpleasant bigot, gays, people with disabilities and those of different races and cultures are targets for his nastiness!
cyberman

cymrudynnion wrote:
cyberman wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


So - these bucketfuls of concessions are in fact not a concession at all. Just like anyone else, a party of Muslims were allowed to hire a pool for a private event.

You are a disgraceful liar, and a bigot.
And you are responding to the wrong person


What do you mean, wrong person?

You are the one who said:
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.


And you are the one who, after weeks and weeks of shying away from the issue, said that it was to do with swimming pools.

cymrudynnion wrote:
In the local swimming pool there are times one cannot swim, why? Reason our Muslim friends wish to swim and they canot mix with the rest of the populous.


Stop being such a snivelling little coward and back up your claim that
cymrudynnion wrote:
in my own neck of the woods any consession that islam wishes to have is given by the bucketfull by those in authority.
.

Do you have any actual concessions in mind at all, or is it just ill-informed bigotted ranting?
The Boyg

This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.
trentvoyager

The Boyg wrote:
This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.


I concur.

Please try and be civil when posting, otherwise I will be forced to move this and put on my "you've been very naughty boys and girls" face.

Thank you
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.

... a state of affairs which presumably wouldn't have come about if cymrudinnion had the minerals either to (a) substantiate his claims with evidence or (b) fess up that he said something that isn't actually true, or that it's merely his personal opinion that he can't substantiate with facts.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:

Please try and be civil when posting,


I think he means you, cym.

(By the way, what does 'cymrudynnion' mean? If you change the double 'n' to a single 'n', then it means "Wales gentlemen". Were you trying to say 'welshman'?)
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:

Please try and be civil when posting,


I think he means you, cym.

(By the way, what does 'cymrudynnion' mean? If you change the double 'n' to a single 'n', then it means "Wales gentlemen". Were you trying to say 'welshman'?)


You're just trying to upset me now.

I mean all of you, dang nabbit. (always wanted to use that)

I appreciate there are strong opinions on both sides of the argument - but clarity will be better achieved without resorting to mud slinging.


cyberman

OK, let us try sans mud.

Cymrudynnion, my dear old thing.

You have asserted that in your neck of the woods, concessions are granted by the bucketload to Muslims by the authorities, upon demand.

You have elsewhere mentioned swimming pools and RE lessons in this regard.

Do you mean to say, my darling old stick, that you feel that bucketloads of concessions have been granted in your neck of the woods to Muslims in the fields of swimming and religious education?

Are there any other concessions which contribute to the filling of your metaphorical buckets, or does two fill many buckets in your neck of the woods?

As to these concessions, what exactly are they? They can not, for example, be the right to book a pool for a provate event. This is not a concession to Islam, as anyone is allowed to do exactly the same thing. Also, it cannot mean the right to excuse ones offspring from RE lessons. This is not a concession to Islam, as anyone is allowed to do exactly the same thing.

So, dear heart, I wonder if you would be so lovely as to let your devoted readers know exactly which concessions are contained within the various allegorcal receptacles to which you and I have previously alluded.

There is a very real danger of your posts being so construed as to lead the casual reader to infer a certain degree of intolerance and ill-will on your part, and we should hate for such an impression to be gained in error, I'm sure.

Lots of love my darling boy,
cyberman
xxx
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
OK, let us try sans mud.

Cymrudynnion, my dear old thing.

You have asserted that in your neck of the woods, concessions are granted by the bucketload to Muslims by the authorities, upon demand.

You have elsewhere mentioned swimming pools and RE lessons in this regard.

Do you mean to say, my darling old stick, that you feel that bucketloads of concessions have been granted in your neck of the woods to Muslims in the fields of swimming and religious education?

Are there any other concessions which contribute to the filling of your metaphorical buckets, or does two fill many buckets in your neck of the woods?

As to these concessions, what exactly are they? They can not, for example, be the right to book a pool for a provate event. This is not a concession to Islam, as anyone is allowed to do exactly the same thing. Also, it cannot mean the right to excuse ones offspring from RE lessons. This is not a concession to Islam, as anyone is allowed to do exactly the same thing.

So, dear heart, I wonder if you would be so lovely as to let your devoted readers know exactly which concessions are contained within the various allegorcal receptacles to which you and I have previously alluded.

There is a very real danger of your posts being so construed as to lead the casual reader to infer a certain degree of intolerance and ill-will on your part, and we should hate for such an impression to be gained in error, I'm sure.

Lots of love my darling boy,
cyberman
xxx


You see dahhhling, that is so much nicer. Thanks everso.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.

... a state of affairs which presumably wouldn't have come about if cymrudinnion had the minerals either to (a) substantiate his claims with evidence or (b) fess up that he said something that isn't actually true, or that it's merely his personal opinion that he can't substantiate with facts.


It might not have. However that doesn't justify people turning their frustration into abuse.
cyberman

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.

... a state of affairs which presumably wouldn't have come about if cymrudinnion had the minerals either to (a) substantiate his claims with evidence or (b) fess up that he said something that isn't actually true, or that it's merely his personal opinion that he can't substantiate with facts.


It might not have. However that doesn't justify people turning their frustration into abuse.


The Boyg wrote:

Please stop making dickhead presumptions about my beliefs and I will.  
Shaker

Busted ... as I am given to understand the younger generation are wont to say in this day and age.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
This 'discussion' is starting to look like something that belongs in the Bear Pit.

... a state of affairs which presumably wouldn't have come about if cymrudinnion had the minerals either to (a) substantiate his claims with evidence or (b) fess up that he said something that isn't actually true, or that it's merely his personal opinion that he can't substantiate with facts.


It might not have. However that doesn't justify people turning their frustration into abuse.

You have the advantage of me in that regard as I haven't seen any - abuse, I mean. The poster in question has been called intolerant and a bigot for sure, but then, given his record of posts here and elsewhere over a lengthy period of time about his dislike of homosexuals (despite a predilection for lesbian pornography: I suppose we can chalk up hypocrisy to the list) the poster himself is scarcely in a position to be able to deny that particular charge and indeed may not even seek to. It's true that he has additionally been called unpleasant, but that's a personal opinion which doesn't, in my view, amount to abuse and it would abuse the concept of abuse to make it so.

So no, I haven't seen any abuse of the poster concerned: feel free to point it out where you think, in your opinion, it exists. Contrary to the view of some others, a thread such as this doesn't rightfully belong in the Bear Pit: in that sub-forum it is expected that there's a lighter (note: not non-existent) hand on the tiller. All that's happened in this case is that a poster has made some quite specific allegations which, though he had been given every opportunity to substantiate them or retract them (aside from his week off for 'spiritual advice'), remain wholly unevidenced. Cyberman has been more diligent than most in keeping up the pressure on said poster to cough with the evidence or back down, that's all, and all credit to him for doing so. If it was the season yet for wearing hats I'd take off my hat to him for it.
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
It might not have. However that doesn't justify people turning their frustration into abuse.


The Boyg wrote:

Please stop making dickhead presumptions about my beliefs and I will.  


Is that the best that you could come up with?

Quote-mining me describing someone's comments as 'dickhead presumptions' in response to them calling me a prick?

Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
It might not have. However that doesn't justify people turning their frustration into abuse.


The Boyg wrote:

Please stop making dickhead presumptions about my beliefs and I will.  


Is that the best that you could come up with?

Quote-mining me describing someone's comments as 'dickhead presumptions' in response to them calling me a prick?


And what's the problem here, exactly?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Other religions Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum