Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    The fact is you can't read the parable. The parable is about the Jewish religious leaders and the transfer from the Jews to the Gentiles. It's hardly a complicated parable yet you can't even detail how it applies to non-believers. The landowner is the God the Father, the son is Jesus, the initial tenants are the Jewish leadership and Israel, the second group of tenants is the Gentiles. No where in the parable does it say to kill non-believers.




    No where have I denied the actions of Christians in the past. You have yet to show the texts that would justify their actions.
    Again reading comprehension appears to be a problem on your part. From the parable . . .

    "Did you never read in the Scripture about the stone which the builders rejected, and which, when the people had discovered it, was made into the cornerstone? And so once more do I warn you that, if you continue to reject this gospel, presently will the kingdom of God be taken away from you and be given to a people willing to receive the good news and to bring forth the fruits of the spirit And there is a mystery about this stone, seeing that whoso falls upon it, while he is thereby broken in pieces, shall be saved; but on whomsoever this stone falls, he will be ground to dust and his ashes scattered to the four winds."

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      Again reading comprehension appears to be a problem on your part. From the parable . . .

      "Did you never read in the Scripture about the stone which the builders rejected, and which, when the people had discovered it, was made into the cornerstone? And so once more do I warn you that, if you continue to reject this gospel, presently will the kingdom of God be taken away from you and be given to a people willing to receive the good news and to bring forth the fruits of the spirit And there is a mystery about this stone, seeing that whoso falls upon it, while he is thereby broken in pieces, shall be saved; but on whomsoever this stone falls, he will be ground to dust and his ashes scattered to the four winds."
      I am trying to follow your argument. Are you saying that because Jesus said that those who don't accept the gospel will be destroyed that it is OK to kill people who don't convert?

      Jesus is talking about their ultimate destination, that those who reject him will be judged on their sin and sent to hell. It is a warning, not a command to 'convert or kill.'

      Your argument is like someone saying "Stop the bridge is out ahead! If you keep going you will die!" and someone else taking that to mean "Stop or I will kill you!"


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        And there are not any lifespan issues that would lead people in the past to have different considerations of adulthood or marry early in a females capacity to reproduce. Christians also have stopped such a practice
        Not according reports from the USA.

        From here:

        https://childusa.org/wp-content/uplo...-in-the-US.pdf

        An Overview of Child Marriage in the United States Child marriage is a pervasive issue in the United States with devastating domestic consequences. Approximately 40 children are married each day in the United States.47 Child marriage advocacy group, Unchained At Last, estimates that 248,000 children were married in America between 2000 and 2010, 48 and marriage license data shows that at least three states granted 12-year-olds marriage licenses and at least 14 states granted 13-year-olds marriage licenses during that period. 49 The problem is vast, and mounting U.S.-based evidence reflects the consequences of child marriage in America. Between 70% and 80% of marriages involving a child in the U.S. end in divorce, and child marriage followed by divorce doubles the likelihood that child mothers will descend into poverty.50 Girls in the U.S. who marry before the age of 19 are also 50% more likely to drop out of high school and four times less likely to graduate from college.51 From a health perspective, studies show that victims of child marriage in the U.S. are acutely vulnerable to higher rates of psychiatric disorders52 as well as physical, emotional, or verbal abuse.53 Like the global consequences of child marriage, the domestic consequences carry with them tremendous intergenerational and societal costs for America.



        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        I assume you not accept Plutarch's work to be valid given the time transpired.
        What relevance has that comment?

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

        The text seems pretty definitive bout the age, I"m not surprised you're trying to avoid the text. You could cite those who disagree with al-Bukhari.
        I understand some Muslims do.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        It's also strange you think age could no about accounted for in the past or that birth certificates would be required.
        I never wrote that birth certificates would be required. I wrote that birth records were not kept nor were birthdays. And age might be estimated from various points, not necessarily from birth.


        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).


        In fact it seems the marriage is reiterated in 69,70, & 93 as being consummated at age nine. If you think Aisha was in puberty at 9, that would be for you to prove.
        We know that today some girls start menstruating very young. There is no reason to suppose that situation did not occur at previous points in history. We also have to consider attendant high mortality rates [especially among women in childbirth and in children] at previous moments in human history.

        Furthermore, our own western legal definitions of at what age sexual activity is socially acceptable are completely arbitrary and premised on later cultural attitudes towards children.

        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        As I'm sure I've said before, I have no interest discussing interpretation of Scripture with you.
        Why not? You are an agnostic and I am an atheist. We should share some things in common.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Not according reports from the USA.

          From here:

          https://childusa.org/wp-content/uplo...-in-the-US.pdf

          An Overview of Child Marriage in the United States Child marriage is a pervasive issue in the United States with devastating domestic consequences. Approximately 40 children are married each day in the United States.47 Child marriage advocacy group, Unchained At Last, estimates that 248,000 children were married in America between 2000 and 2010, 48 and marriage license data shows that at least three states granted 12-year-olds marriage licenses and at least 14 states granted 13-year-olds marriage licenses during that period. 49 The problem is vast, and mounting U.S.-based evidence reflects the consequences of child marriage in America. Between 70% and 80% of marriages involving a child in the U.S. end in divorce, and child marriage followed by divorce doubles the likelihood that child mothers will descend into poverty.50 Girls in the U.S. who marry before the age of 19 are also 50% more likely to drop out of high school and four times less likely to graduate from college.51 From a health perspective, studies show that victims of child marriage in the U.S. are acutely vulnerable to higher rates of psychiatric disorders52 as well as physical, emotional, or verbal abuse.53 Like the global consequences of child marriage, the domestic consequences carry with them tremendous intergenerational and societal costs for America.
          It seems that the age of marriage is overwhelmingly 16 or 17 (mainly 17) and the spousal age is 18-20. Likely these may be related to Romeo/Juliet laws. You would likely have no issue with the majority of the marriages. 248,000 is a low number for ten years. Nor does the report detail the the circumstances of the marriages.


          What relevance has that comment?
          If time is a factor in the veracity or information, Plutarch wrote on individuals going back to 820 BC.


          I understand some Muslims do.
          And yet they are missing from your commentary.


          We know that today some girls start menstruating very young. There is no reason to suppose that situation did not occur at previous points in history. We also have to consider attendant high mortality rates [especially among women in childbirth and in children] at previous moments in human history.

          Nutrition is much different today than in the past, especially the prevalence of soy and isoflavones.


          Furthermore, our own western legal definitions of at what age sexual activity is socially acceptable are completely arbitrary and premised on later cultural attitudes towards children.

          I would agree that there are prominent individuals in the West who have or currently do advocate adult-minor relationships, even outside of say 16 and 18 years.


          Why not? You are an agnostic and I am an atheist. We should share some things in common.
          I'm quite sure we would not agree on what constitutes "atheism", much less the interpretation of the Bible. Sharing a non-theistic position entails nothing about sharing other things in common.

          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            I am trying to follow your argument. Are you saying that because Jesus said that those who don't accept the gospel will be destroyed that it is OK to kill people who don't convert?
            Yes, that is what the parable clearly and specifically states.

            Jesus is talking about their ultimate destination, that those who reject him will be judged on their sin and sent to hell. It is a warning, not a command to 'convert or kill.'
            The main point of the parable is the penalty of not believing is death, therefore 'convert or die.'

            Your argument is like someone saying "Stop the bridge is out ahead! If you keep going you will die!" and someone else taking that to mean "Stop or I will kill you!"
            No it is not. my conclusion is specific to the parable. Two millennia of 'forced conversions; by sincere Christians who believe sincerely they are doing the will of God including including major churches who recently operated missionary schools that practiced 'forced conversions' of Native Americans and other third world countries. It is far too prevalent to dismiss with a 'hand wave' of they 'just misinterpreted scripture.'

            The problem again is the ambiguous nature of ancient tribal scripture that can be interpreted in too many ways. For example, there is not any clear and specific statement forbiding 'forced conversion or slavery.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

              Yes, that is what the parable clearly and specifically states.



              The main point of the parable is the penalty of not believing is death, therefore 'convert or die.'



              No it is not. my conclusion is specific to the parable. Two millennia of 'forced conversions; by sincere Christians who believe sincerely they are doing the will of God including including major churches who recently operated missionary schools that practiced 'forced conversions' of Native Americans and other third world countries. It is far too prevalent to dismiss with a 'hand wave' of they 'just misinterpreted scripture.'

              The problem again is the ambiguous nature of ancient tribal scripture that can be interpreted in too many ways. For example, there is not any clear and specific statement forbiding 'forced conversion or slavery.
              The parable is about judgment for sin and rejecting God and salvation. The punishment comes from God. We are all sinners and our default destination is death/hell. Jesus came to give us a way out of that. He is simply saying those who reject him will die. Because that is what will happen if left alone. He is clearly not commanding anyone to kill anyone who rejects him. You are isolating a story from the context of the rest of the book it is in, and from the context of the rest of the bible.

              Now, could someone also do as you did and try to use that as a justification to "convert or die"? Sure, people twist the scriptures to their own ends all the time. But that is indeed twisting Jesus' words to fit their own desires, and not what Jesus was actually teaching.

              Forced conversion would not work any more than forcing someone to sign a contract with a gun to their head. Sure they might go through the motions but they wouldn't mean it. They wouldn't believe in Jesus or God, or the gospel. And without actually believing it is true and accepting Jesus as your Lord, you are not saved. It is merely lip service born out of fear.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                The parable is about judgment for sin and rejecting God and salvation. The punishment comes from God. We are all sinners and our default destination is death/hell. Jesus came to give us a way out of that. He is simply saying those who reject him will die. Because that is what will happen if left alone. He is clearly not commanding anyone to kill anyone who rejects him. You are isolating a story from the context of the rest of the book it is in, and from the context of the rest of the bible.

                Now, could someone also do as you did and try to use that as a justification to "convert or die"? Sure, people twist the scriptures to their own ends all the time. But that is indeed twisting Jesus' words to fit their own desires, and not what Jesus was actually teaching.

                Forced conversion would not work any more than forcing someone to sign a contract with a gun to their head. Sure they might go through the motions but they wouldn't mean it. They wouldn't believe in Jesus or God, or the gospel. And without actually believing it is true and accepting Jesus as your Lord, you are not saved. It is merely lip service born out of fear.
                Your hand wave is meaningless avoiding the obvious possible literal interpretation. Again . . .

                Yes, that is what the parable clearly and specifically states.



                The main point of the parable is the penalty of not believing is death, therefore 'convert or die.'



                No it is not. my conclusion is specific to the parable. Two millennia of 'forced conversions; by sincere Christians who believe sincerely they are doing the will of God including including major churches who recently operated missionary schools that practiced 'forced conversions' of Native Americans and other third world countries. It is far too prevalent to dismiss with a 'hand wave' of they 'just misinterpreted scripture.'

                The problem again is the ambiguous nature of ancient tribal scripture that can be interpreted in too many ways. For example, there is not any clear and specific statement forbiding 'forced conversion or slavery.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  Your hand wave is meaningless avoiding the obvious possible literal interpretation. Again . . .

                  Yes, that is what the parable clearly and specifically states.



                  The main point of the parable is the penalty of not believing is death, therefore 'convert or die.'



                  No it is not. my conclusion is specific to the parable. Two millennia of 'forced conversions; by sincere Christians who believe sincerely they are doing the will of God including including major churches who recently operated missionary schools that practiced 'forced conversions' of Native Americans and other third world countries. It is far too prevalent to dismiss with a 'hand wave' of they 'just misinterpreted scripture.'

                  The problem again is the ambiguous nature of ancient tribal scripture that can be interpreted in too many ways. For example, there is not any clear and specific statement forbiding 'forced conversion or slavery.
                  It is only ambiguous if you take it in isolation out of all context.

                  Like I said, people like you will twist the bible to their own ends and meanings, but that is upon their own heads and not the fault of the bible or of Jesus. Jesus never taught conversion by the sword, or killing at all. He even stopped the pharisees from stoning people who clearly were under the death penalty from breaking the OT Law, like the prostitute. He taught to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, not murder them. When he sent his disciples out to preach the gospel, he didn't tell them to kill them if they reject it, he said to wipe the dust off their feet and move on. From the same book of Matthew as your parable:

                  Matthew 10:14
                  If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    It is only ambiguous if you take it in isolation out of all context.

                    Like I said, people like you will twist the bible to their own ends and meanings, but that is upon their own heads and not the fault of the bible or of Jesus. Jesus never taught conversion by the sword, or killing at all. He even stopped the pharisees from stoning people who clearly were under the death penalty from breaking the OT Law, like the prostitute. He taught to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, not murder them. When he sent his disciples out to preach the gospel, he didn't tell them to kill them if they reject it, he said to wipe the dust off their feet and move on. From the same book of Matthew as your parable:

                    Matthew 10:14
                    If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

                    Your citation does not address the issue of the thread. The parable did not address the breaking of OT laws. The parable is in the context of the penalty of rejecting the prophets and Jesus

                    Again . . .

                    No it is not. my conclusion is specific to the parable. Two millennia of 'forced conversions; by sincere Christians who believe sincerely they are doing the will of God including including major churches who recently operated missionary schools that practiced 'forced conversions' of Native Americans and other third world countries. It is far too prevalent to dismiss with a 'hand wave' of they 'just misinterpreted scripture.'

                    The problem again is the ambiguous nature of ancient tribal scripture that can be interpreted in too many ways. For example, there is not any clear and specific statement forbiding 'forced conversion or slavery.

                    The problem is the same with Islam two sides argue whether scripture promotes 'forced conversion. The ambiguity of the scriptures can result in interpretation either way. Nonetheless both Christianity and Islam practiced 'forced conversion' over the millennia and believed they were doing it in the name and will of God.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      It seems that the age of marriage is overwhelmingly 16 or 17 (mainly 17) and the spousal age is 18-20. Likely these may be related to Romeo/Juliet laws.
                      Or ways for legally adult males to avoid being charged with sex offences. The [albeit isolated] incident in Alabama where a seventy four year old man married a fourteen year old also raises some questions about Romeo and Juliet laws!

                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                      If time is a factor in the veracity or information, Plutarch wrote on individuals going back to 820 BC.
                      My comment pertained to the date whereby Aisha's alleged comments were recorded which was some two hundred years after her death. Although I am usually rather wary of Wikipedia there is a very long and interesting article on Aisha's Age which contains references to the Ph.D thesis of Dr Joshua Little, The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Memory which deals with the authenticity of this hadith not the sociological or religious issue surrounding it. He has made his thesis available online and I am presently reading it. In the opening of chapter three he poses the question [I am paraphrasing] what basis exists for the assumption that the extant texts/evidence for this idea are directly linked back to an actual comment made by Aisha? Or are there possible indications that these comments actually reflect a later period in Islamic history? Or can we offer no observations either way? He then goes on to deal with the various isnads.

                      There is also at least one Muslim site that challenges the age of Aisha when her marriage was consummated.

                      https://hameem.org/2019/02/11/proof-...e-be-upon-him/

                      Although the widely-cited hadith states that Aisha was nine years old when her marriage to the Prophet (upon him be peace) was consummated, this is contradicted by strong historical evidence. Tabari, the famous historian and hadith expert, states that Aisha was born at least fifteen years before the marriage was consummated, and both early prophetic biographers, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, mention that Aisha was amongst the earliest converts to Islam, once again making her much older than the ‘six-nine’ reports indicate, and corroborating Tabari’s opinion. Also, reports of Aisha’s age in works by such authorities as Nawawi, `Asqallani and Ibn Kathir all place her in her late teens at the time the marriage was consummated.


                      A ten year old article in The Guardian newspaper makes similar observations

                      Another Muslim site while contending that the account is correct also cites all the various arguments.

                      https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...t-presumptions

                      There are a myriad of criticisms against Islam propagated by non-Muslims in today’s age. One of these criticisms accuses the Prophet ﷺ of marrying a child because of the ḥadīth mentioned in Bukhārī and Muslim where ʿĀʾisha mentions she married the Prophet at the age of six and consummated the marriage at the age of nine. This paper focuses on two questions.


                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                      Nutrition is much different today than in the past, especially the prevalence of soy and isoflavones.
                      Given ongoing concerns about malnutrition and associated health issues in many western societies that might also be questioned. Nor do we have a great deal of information about the dietary habits of tribal Arabs in the late sixth and early seventh centuries. Although one may assume that cities like Medina provided a variety of foodstuffs.

                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                      I'm quite sure we would not agree on what constitutes "atheism", much less the interpretation of the Bible. Sharing a non-theistic position entails nothing about sharing other things in common.
                      It is certainly unusual for an agnostic to uphold and never question the Christian texts as they have come down to us.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Or ways for legally adult males to avoid being charged with sex offences. The [albeit isolated] incident in Alabama where a seventy four year old man married a fourteen year old also raises some questions about Romeo and Juliet laws!
                        A 74 year old and 14 year old would not be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws. I would agree that rapists can and do take advantage of the current legal landscape. None of this shows that it is prevalent among or considered culturally acceptable among Christians, unlike in Thailand where:



                        “People come from all over Malaysia to do this,” he said. “Business is booming: instead of applying to a sharia court in Malaysia and answering all their difficult questions – a process that takes sometimes a year – the shortcut is to come to Thailand. Here there is no law.”

                        The practice is also particularly lucrative for imams practising on the Thai side of the Golok river, who charge four times as much to conduct a marriage for a visiting Malaysian as they do for people from their own community. In Malaysia, Che Abdul Karim would have found it difficult or impossible to obtain permission to marry Ayu; in Thailand, he simply paid the imam 4,500 baht (£105), and it was done. He has since been fined 1,800 Ringgit (£340) in a sharia court in Malaysia after pleading guilty to polygamy and conducting the marriage without the court’s permission.





                        My comment pertained to the date whereby Aisha's alleged comments were recorded which was some two hundred years after her death. Although I am usually rather wary of Wikipedia there is a very long and interesting article on Aisha's Age which contains references to the Ph.D thesis of Dr Joshua Little, The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Memory which deals with the authenticity of this hadith not the sociological or religious issue surrounding it. He has made his thesis available online and I am presently reading it. In the opening of chapter three he poses the question [I am paraphrasing] what basis exists for the assumption that the extant texts/evidence for this idea are directly linked back to an actual comment made by Aisha? Or are there possible indications that these comments actually reflect a later period in Islamic history? Or can we offer no observations either way? He then goes on to deal with the various isnads.
                        Undermining the authenticity of the text would be the best avenue.

                        There is also at least one Muslim site that challenges the age of Aisha when her marriage was consummated.

                        https://hameem.org/2019/02/11/proof-...e-be-upon-him/

                        Although the widely-cited hadith states that Aisha was nine years old when her marriage to the Prophet (upon him be peace) was consummated, this is contradicted by strong historical evidence. Tabari, the famous historian and hadith expert, states that Aisha was born at least fifteen years before the marriage was consummated, and both early prophetic biographers, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, mention that Aisha was amongst the earliest converts to Islam, once again making her much older than the ‘six-nine’ reports indicate, and corroborating Tabari’s opinion. Also, reports of Aisha’s age in works by such authorities as Nawawi, `Asqallani and Ibn Kathir all place her in her late teens at the time the marriage was consummated.


                        A ten year old article in The Guardian newspaper makes similar observations

                        Another Muslim site while contending that the account is correct also cites all the various arguments.

                        https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...t-presumptions

                        There are a myriad of criticisms against Islam propagated by non-Muslims in today’s age. One of these criticisms accuses the Prophet ﷺ of marrying a child because of the ḥadīth mentioned in Bukhārī and Muslim where ʿĀʾisha mentions she married the Prophet at the age of six and consummated the marriage at the age of nine. This paper focuses on two questions.
                        Given the practice of taqiya, I'm rather skeptical of Islamic apologetics. I find it strange you chose to defend Islam, perhaps this is how other non-theists feel about me when I interact with them.


                        Given ongoing concerns about malnutrition and associated health issues in many western societies that might also be questioned. Nor do we have a great deal of information about the dietary habits of tribal Arabs in the late sixth and early seventh centuries. Although one may assume that cities like Medina provided a variety of foodstuffs.
                        I specifically reference the modern prevalence of soy and isoflavones due to the similarity to œstrogen.
                        P1) If , then I win.

                        P2)

                        C) I win.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                          A 74 year old and 14 year old would not be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws. I would agree that rapists can and do take advantage of the current legal landscape. None of this shows that it is prevalent among or considered culturally acceptable among Christians, unlike in Thailand where
                          From 2019

                          https://abcnews.go.com/US/child-brid...ry?id=64589713

                          They're portrayed as modern-day Romeos and Juliets -- young, star-crossed lovers in dramas like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and reality shows like "Say Yes to the Dress."

                          But for hundreds of thousands of young girls across America, their wedding's a far cry from happily ever after.

                          Child marriage is an issue many can't imagine would exist in America.

                          But over the course of a year-long investigation, "Nightline" traveled from the East Coast to the mountainous west to the heartland, uncovering America's child brides.

                          For Ashley Duncan, what started as a typical school day as a freshman in high school ended with her becoming a wife.

                          "My aunt, she got on the bus not long after I did and said, 'Come on get off the bus, you're going to get married,'" Duncan remembered. She was 15 years old.
                          They're portrayed as modern-day Romeos and Juliets -- young, star-crossed lovers in dramas like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and reality shows like "Say Yes to the Dress."

                          But for hundreds of thousands of young girls across America, their wedding's a far cry from happily ever after.

                          Child marriage is an issue many can't imagine would exist in America.

                          But over the course of a year-long investigation, "Nightline" traveled from the East Coast to the mountainous west to the heartland, uncovering America's child brides.

                          For Ashley Duncan, what started as a typical school day as a freshman in high school ended with her becoming a wife.

                          "My aunt, she got on the bus not long after I did and said, 'Come on get off the bus, you're going to get married,'" Duncan remembered. She was 15 years old.


                          From 2021

                          https://populationmatters.org/news/2...s-the-outrage/
                          Girls as young as ten are legally getting married in the United States – nearly 300,000 since 2000, according to a new report by Unchained At Last. With no protective federal law in place, over 20 states allow for child marriage at 16 years, and 10 have no age limit whatsoever. Population Matters Outreach Coordinator Florence Blondel uncovers an ugly and little-known truth.

                          HIDDEN CRISIS

                          The report titled United States’ Child Marriage Problem by Unchained at Last, which combats forced and child marriage in the US, reveals some shocking and poorly known facts. About 300,000 children with a few as young as 10 were married in the US between 2000 and 2018. Not surprisingly, most are girls (86%) married to adult men – clearly an injustice rooted in gender inequality and patriarchy. What makes this crisis worse is that these marriages are lawful.

                          Child marriage is stll legal in 46 states, and it’s only in recent years that the remaining four states – Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania – banned the practice with no exceptions. UNICEF defines a child as anyone under 18 years of age. Ironically, while children in the US can get married, they are not yet entitled to file for divorce or seek shelter in case of domestic violence.


                          And nowhere do I condone child marriages.

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          Undermining the authenticity of the text would be the best avenue.
                          Why assume it is authentic?
                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                          Given the practice of taqiya, I'm rather skeptical of Islamic apologetics. I find it strange you chose to defend Islam, perhaps this is how other non-theists feel about me when I interact with them.
                          Once again why do you consider I am defending Islam? Or might this be a purely subjective prejudice against that religion on your part?

                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                          I specifically reference the modern prevalence of soy and isoflavones due to the similarity to œstrogen.
                          Which does not address my own comments.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            From 2019

                            https://abcnews.go.com/US/child-brid...ry?id=64589713

                            They're portrayed as modern-day Romeos and Juliets -- young, star-crossed lovers in dramas like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and reality shows like "Say Yes to the Dress."

                            But for hundreds of thousands of young girls across America, their wedding's a far cry from happily ever after.

                            Child marriage is an issue many can't imagine would exist in America.

                            But over the course of a year-long investigation, "Nightline" traveled from the East Coast to the mountainous west to the heartland, uncovering America's child brides.

                            For Ashley Duncan, what started as a typical school day as a freshman in high school ended with her becoming a wife.

                            "My aunt, she got on the bus not long after I did and said, 'Come on get off the bus, you're going to get married,'" Duncan remembered. She was 15 years old.
                            They're portrayed as modern-day Romeos and Juliets -- young, star-crossed lovers in dramas like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and reality shows like "Say Yes to the Dress."

                            But for hundreds of thousands of young girls across America, their wedding's a far cry from happily ever after.

                            Child marriage is an issue many can't imagine would exist in America.

                            But over the course of a year-long investigation, "Nightline" traveled from the East Coast to the mountainous west to the heartland, uncovering America's child brides.

                            For Ashley Duncan, what started as a typical school day as a freshman in high school ended with her becoming a wife.

                            "My aunt, she got on the bus not long after I did and said, 'Come on get off the bus, you're going to get married,'" Duncan remembered. She was 15 years old.


                            From 2021

                            https://populationmatters.org/news/2...s-the-outrage/
                            Girls as young as ten are legally getting married in the United States – nearly 300,000 since 2000, according to a new report by Unchained At Last. With no protective federal law in place, over 20 states allow for child marriage at 16 years, and 10 have no age limit whatsoever. Population Matters Outreach Coordinator Florence Blondel uncovers an ugly and little-known truth.

                            HIDDEN CRISIS

                            The report titled United States’ Child Marriage Problem by Unchained at Last, which combats forced and child marriage in the US, reveals some shocking and poorly known facts. About 300,000 children with a few as young as 10 were married in the US between 2000 and 2018. Not surprisingly, most are girls (86%) married to adult men – clearly an injustice rooted in gender inequality and patriarchy. What makes this crisis worse is that these marriages are lawful.

                            Child marriage is stll legal in 46 states, and it’s only in recent years that the remaining four states – Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania – banned the practice with no exceptions. UNICEF defines a child as anyone under 18 years of age. Ironically, while children in the US can get married, they are not yet entitled to file for divorce or seek shelter in case of domestic violence.


                            And nowhere do I condone child marriages.
                            Some 67% of brides are 17 in the US. I find it odd you call me priggish regarding adult-minor sexual relationships and how they relate to the likes of Foucault and Rubin, but you seem to have issues with what is majority 17 yr olds marrying 18-20 yr olds as if those were comparable to Muhammad's marriage to Aisha


                            Once again why do you consider I am defending Islam? Or might this be a purely subjective prejudice against that religion on your part?
                            You're certainly sensitive of the claim regarding Aisha's age



                            Which does not address my own comments.

                            So a prevalence of chemicals that mimic human oestrogen in modern diets is the same as ancient diets?
                            Last edited by Diogenes; 03-18-2023, 04:01 PM.
                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                              Some 67% of brides are 17 in the US. I find it odd you call me priggish
                              You really should cease inventing things. Where have I referred to you as "priggish"?

                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              You're certainly sensitive of the claim regarding Aisha's age
                              This hadith cannot automatically be assumed to be veracious. It might be but equally it might not be.

                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                              So a prevalence of chemicals that mimic human oestrogen in modern diets is the same as ancient diets?
                              Isoflavones are also found in other pulses/legumes [albeit not to the extent in which they occur in soya beans or soya products] and pulses were widely eaten in the ancient world, especially in the ANE.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                You really should cease inventing things. Where have I referred to you as "priggish"?
                                To quote:

                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                I am pointing out that you cannot retroject your own censorious [and as they appear rather priggish] views back over two thousand years into a completely different cultural and social society.
                                It seems you view my attitudes against pederasty (essentially social prostitution and similar to Harvey Weinstein's action along with the culture of the "casting couch) and yet you seem quite willing to defend Mohammed's marriage to Aisha.

                                This hadith cannot automatically be assumed to be veracious. It might be but equally it might not be.
                                Neither can Plutarch's Lives.


                                Isoflavones are also found in other pulses/legumes [albeit not to the extent in which they occur in soya beans or soya products] and pulses were widely eaten in the ancient world, especially in the ANE.

                                Soy is extremely prevalent in modern diets as an additive, much more so than pulses/legumes were in the ANE

                                P1) If , then I win.

                                P2)

                                C) I win.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 01-18-2023, 10:09 PM
                                392 responses
                                2,170 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by eider, 01-17-2023, 01:14 AM
                                806 responses
                                3,764 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                                158 responses
                                981 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Working...
                                X