Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 4 votes

Adam Deen | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion

islam peaceful religion oxford union

  • Please log in to reply
569 replies to this topic

#316    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:09 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 December 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:


No, it's ridiculously presumptuous to try to force other people into relationships that you think they should have.

Well indeed it is. By arguing for a penalty against adultery, I am trying to force people into relationships I think they should have. It has nothing to do with a quintessential foundation of mutual respect and the general equilibrium of a society as a whole, its about what I am trying to force upon others based on my subjective, fleeting, barbaric opinion. Lets all just relish in adulterous behaviour as we deem fit, nothing wrong with that at all. And remember, trying to point out the dire negative effects normalisation of this behaviour will have on a society is an attempt at direct underminement of personal freedom and liberty.

You do realize that your logic can be used in the exact same way to defend all sorts of crimes and / or egotistical behaviour, as long as it is accepted by / normalised in society, dont you.

Quote

I didn't say anything about 'cheating', I said 'adultery'; they are not the same thing. While you are pondering this madness in silence, I would suggest also pondering the concept of 'open marriages'.

Reaching for something to hold on to it seems. This is a non- argument. With open marriages both parties agree in advance to not be faithful to eachother - which would make one wonder why they would choose to marry at all, but that is besides the point.
Adultery is predominantly and generally defined as extra marital sexual relations without the consent of all parties involved. Please dont feign to be ignorant of that, however convenient that might be for your case here.


#317    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,518 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 17 December 2013 - 05:27 PM

View PostPhaeton80, on 17 December 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Well indeed it is. By arguing for a penalty against adultery, I am trying to force people into relationships I think they should have.

Glad you agree.

Quote

It has nothing to do with a quintessential foundation of mutual respect and the general equilibrium of a society as a whole, its about what I am trying to force upon others based on my subjective, fleeting, barbaric opinion. Lets all just relish in adulterous behaviour as we deem fit, nothing wrong with that at all. And remember, trying to point out the dire negative effects normalisation of this behaviour will have on a society is an attempt at direct underminement of personal freedom and liberty.

No, trying to point out the 'dire' (your word) negative effects of this behavior is not an attempt to undermine liberty, but arguing for a penalty for adultery is.  Preserving "the general equilibrium of society as a whole" is an 'argument' that has been offered in opposition to inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, people marrying people they love instead of whom they have been arranged to marriage, etc, so I personally don't find it a very compelling argument.  

Quote

You do realize that your logic can be used in the exact same way to defend all sorts of crimes and / or egotistical behaviour, as long as it is accepted by / normalised in society, dont you.

No, that's not logical, as you don't know my full logic.  Mere egotistical behavior should not be against the law.  I think violations of personal liberty should be legislated only in the case where allowing the liberty harms another person; as I think Jefferson put it, 'your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose'.  Since I don't think adultery causes enough measurable and actionable 'harm' to require making it illegal doesn't mean that I don't think other crimes that do cause actual harm shouldn't be, that doesn't logically follow.

Quote

Reaching for something to hold on to it seems. This is a non- argument. With open marriages both parties agree in advance to not be faithful to eachother - which would make one wonder why they would choose to marry at all, but that is besides the point.

No, in open marriages both parties do not have to agree in advance, I have no idea where you are getting that from; they can determine at any time that they want their relationship to be open.  I don't really wonder why couples would have an open marriage because it's none of my business and any disapproval I would have of it would largely be based on the very bad presumption that I know other people and their relationships better than they do.

Quote

Adultery is predominantly and generally defined as extra marital sexual relations without the consent of all parties involved. Please dont feign to be ignorant of that, however convenient that might be for your case here.

There's nothing 'convenient' about it, open marriages are adulterous by definition, you can consult a dictionary if you disagree with me.  Do you consider open marriages to be 'adultery'?  Do you want open marriages penalized?  Does scripture make this distinction in its admonitions against adultery?  I'm not aware of any religions saying 'adultery is okay if it's in the context of an open marriage'.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#318    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 17 December 2013 - 06:14 PM

View PostPhaeton80, on 17 December 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Well indeed it is. By arguing for a penalty against adultery, I am trying to force people into relationships I think they should have. It has nothing to do with a quintessential foundation of mutual respect and the general equilibrium of a society as a whole, its about what I am trying to force upon others based on my subjective, fleeting, barbaric opinion.

No-one has suggested your opinion is "barbaric", but all else you wrote here is true.

The version of "mutual respect" and notion of what constitutes the "general equilibrium of society" you refer to are all your own versions of those things. Sexual fidelity may not be on the radar of another person's opinion of what is "respectful", while honesty may be.

It has nothing to do with a "quintessential foundation of mutual respect and the general equilibrium of society", because those things do not have any objective measure - but are subjective values which vary from person to person.

What religion (and some other forms of social control) does is to try to apply an absolute, objective value onto something which is inherently subjective. That is why such systems of control cause conflict.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#319    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 18 December 2013 - 12:01 AM

"Open marriage" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Marriage is defined as a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman (or same sex union, in some areas of the world). The moment one or both parties decide to open themselves to other partners, it ceases to be a marriage in all but name.

I don't necessarily agree a person should be punished by the law for adultery. But once you take the marriage vows I argue that you abrogate your right to sexual encounters with others until such time as you dissolve the vows you took at your ceremony. To cheat on your partner without them knowing is wrong. Pure and simple. It can't be excused by any rational approach. If both parties decide an open marriage is the way to go, then they've butchered the definition of marriage (that annoying little line in the vows about "forsaking all others", just because some people write their own vows doesn't make it less real). But at lest they're not betraying the trust of their partner by going behind their back.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#320    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 18 December 2013 - 12:52 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 18 December 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

"Open marriage" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Marriage is defined as a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman (or same sex union, in some areas of the world).

Can you back up that claim, PA?

All the definitions I know of (outside of religious literature) refer to marriage simply as the legal union of two people as life or sexual partners. No mention of monogamy.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#321    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,518 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 December 2013 - 12:53 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 18 December 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

"Open marriage" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Marriage is defined as a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman (or same sex union, in some areas of the world). The moment one or both parties decide to open themselves to other partners, it ceases to be a marriage in all but name.

To you.  I'm not nearly as comfortable as you apparently at judging other people's relationships and 'what they are'.

Quote

I don't necessarily agree a person should be punished by the law for adultery. But once you take the marriage vows I argue that you abrogate your right to sexual encounters with others until such time as you dissolve the vows you took at your ceremony.

Not, 'the' marriage vows, you mean your marriage vows.

Quote

If both parties decide an open marriage is the way to go, then they've butchered the definition of marriage (that annoying little line in the vows about "forsaking all others", just because some people write their own vows doesn't make it less real). But at lest they're not betraying the trust of their partner by going behind their back.

There is no 'the vows'.  Yes, because people write their own vows it may make 'forsaking all others' less real, it depends on the vows.  BTW, the use of the phrase, 'the definition of marriage', as a justification for something does not have a great track record historically.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#322    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Mostly Harmless

  • Member
  • 11,326 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 18 December 2013 - 01:48 AM

Marriage is whatever a particular culture says it is.  There are many different kinds of marriage. It is ethnocentric to think monogamy is the only form of marriage.

http://en.wikipedia....es_of_marriages

Neo Pagans do handfastings. You can handfast for year or forever, it is up to the couple.  Sexual orientation is irrelevant.  A few Pagans do ployamory.  Love is where you find it.  Legally we are locked down by the laws of the state. How we actually organize our love life is up to the people involved.  Our religious culture has a very different mind set when it comes love and the affairs of the heart.  Culture is fluid and changes over time. Things are changing slowly when it comes to sexual orientation and marriage.  I know  many long term same sex couples I see no reason they should not be able to marry their partner. You can't force someone to be something they are not.

"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost; for none now live who remember it."  Galadriel

#323    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:04 AM

I argue that the act of marrying another person is an indication that you wish to change the nature of your relationship. Otherwise, why marry at all (and citing legal rights of spouses will strike me as highly cynical). What change in your relationship could exist except the pledge to be with them, and only them, for the rest of their lives.

But I won't win this argument, I was simply sharing my opinion. Nevertheless, the rest ofmy comment is valid. There is no justification for going behind your partner's back for sex. It's wrong, and trying to argue otherwise on the basis that the argument is based on the idea of "ownership" of your partner, that's just staggeringly wrong.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#324    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:07 AM

It is quite obvious to me some here are not in it for a rational debate, but rather leave no stone unturned to simply oppose what others say. Only to oppose.

First the concept of adultery was marginalised by equalling it to 'someone making you laugh, or pleasuring you'.

Then focus was made on it being part of your personal freedom, personal liberty. After that, the definition card was pulled, trying to grab 'open marriage' by its hairs kicking and screaming, to defend the opposing stance.
..Trying to maintain they never meant 'cheating' while discussing 'adultery'.

I use the word 'egotistical' in combination with 'crime' - given I have been trying to point out the inherent inclination of Man to satisfy its ego, from which for all intents and purposes most crimes originate - and some people jump on it to nitpick & consciously misconstrue the use as implying all egotistical behaviour should warrant a penalty.

Some even tried to equate my argument with anti feminin sentiment, having 'no respect for women', or that I should 'leave our society', if I dislike / criticize it so much. Eventhough ofcourse, it is 'my' society.. But that doesnt fit the raging stereotyping that is obviously going on in the heads of some here. Even after explicitly pointing out I am a white, Dutch, ex- atheist with no religious upbringing whatsoever, I am still seen as some sort of tulband wearing Quran thumping foreigner passionately trying to convert Westerners (this all happening on the same page o/t thread mind you).

And I could go on and on with these examples. Really, really sad - and funny - stuff. One would almost say, 'toxic'. No worries though, I absolutely love the opposition. Not only the act of opposing me, but the people as well.

That includes you, Frank. You lovable angry bugger you.

Edited by Phaeton80, 18 December 2013 - 10:12 AM.


#325    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:10 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 18 December 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I argue that the act of marrying another person is an indication that you wish to change the nature of your relationship. Otherwise, why marry at all (and citing legal rights of spouses will strike me as highly cynical). What change in your relationship could exist except the pledge to be with them, and only them, for the rest of their lives.

But I won't win this argument, I was simply sharing my opinion. Nevertheless, the rest ofmy comment is valid. There is no justification for going behind your partner's back for sex. It's wrong, and trying to argue otherwise on the basis that the argument is based on the idea of "ownership" of your partner, that's just staggeringly wrong.

No, it's not because that is what marriage evolved to become - the male 'owning' the female.

Fortunately, we have continued to evolve as a society and marriage is gradually losing this sense of ownership as people become more attuned to the modern ideals of gender equality.

However, from it's inception marriage was never about monogamy, but about providing for any children resulting from a sexual relationship - and providing a degree of certainty regarding parentage when the idea of 'inheritance' became important. Religion turned marriage into a monogamous institution, and ceremonialised it.

Phaeton,

How is adultery any different to the Islamic practice of multiple wives? There is no qualitative difference between polyamory and polygamy.

For you, as with many religious people, the institution is more important than the person and this assault on 'adultery' is you defending the institution of marriage - not the people who enter into that institution.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 December 2013 - 10:25 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#326    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:25 AM

If two people are married and one commits adultery, it seems to me if the other cannot accept that then they need to divorce.  That would be a stupid outcome if there aren't other problems and they love each other.


#327    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:28 AM

Quote

How is adultery any different to the Islamic practice of multiple wives? There is no qualitative difference between polyamory and polygamy.

For you, as with many religious people, the institution is more important than the person and this assault on 'adultery' is you defending the institution of marriage - not the people who enter into that institution.

After discussing the meaning of the concept adultery on this very page, you still need to ask me this question Leo?

I think you know the difference between doing something behind someones back and doing something in mutual consent, very well indeed. It is about trust, mutual respect, honesty. A difference of night and day.

It is about the integrity of the family unit, and on a larger scale, the integrity of a society. But Im starting to sound like a broken record here. ..I gave at the office.


#328    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:30 AM

Do men in Islamic countries get beaten for adultery?


#329    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostPhaeton80, on 18 December 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

After discussing the meaning of the concept adultery on this very page, you still need to ask me this question Leo?

I think you know the difference between doing something behind someones back and doing something in mutual consent, very well indeed. It is about trust, mutual respect, honesty. A difference of night and day.

It is about the integrity of the family unit, and on a larger scale, the integrity of a society. But Im starting to sound like a broken record here. ..I gave at the office.

But, as has been stated several times by several people, 'adultery' need not be "behind someones back". The Islamic practice of polygamy is simply legitimising adultery, and people in open marriages are still engaging in adultery (as you argue adultery to be) - regardless that it is consensual.

You are arguing against 'adultery' based on the institution of marriage and according to one particular concept of marriage. Marriage is not simply a state of sexual fidelity - although some may perceive marriage to be just that.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 December 2013 - 10:36 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#330    Phaeton80

Phaeton80

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam

  • "Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music.."

Posted 18 December 2013 - 11:07 AM

Ok, so you choose to maintain here, that marriage has no direct relation with being faithful to eachother. That faithfulness is no intrinsic value of the marriage institution.

And Adultery, has no direct relation with cheating on eachother.

Does this at all seem like an up side down take on reality to you, or is it just me and my religiously biased, old fashioned - barbaric view on things?

You are the one reaching to / using exceptions to the rule to prove your case, not me. Somewhat exotic exceptions at that.

Final bid. This is getting tedious. You know my stance, I know yours.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users