We have seen how the Christian fanatic Cerbie/Paulus tends to use secular ideals in his interpretation of certain Christians beliefs and practices. He tries to deceive people with his personal interpretations and dismisses the views of traditional Christians when they contradict his opinions (i.e. they are “fringe groups”). He has claimed that his views are based on the “example of Christ and the church” when it comes to marriage and divorce. So let us look at the “example” of the early Christians, specifically the church fathers. What were their views on marriage and divorce?
One thing they all share in common is the unanimous prohibition of any Christian man marrying a divorced woman, while her divorced husband is still alive:
Justin Martyr –
“According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman.”
Clement of Alexandria –
“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive.”
Origen –
“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her.”
Augustine –
“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others.”
So, it’s clear that divorce is definitely not allowed except in cases of marital infidelity. But what about marital abuse? As it turns out, Christian law does not allow the breaking of the marriage, but will force an abused spouse to remain legally married to the abuser. The writings of the church father Jerome make this clear:
“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another.”
So notice that the woman has no right to divorce her husband, even if he is violent, but even when he commits adultery! There is no way out for a woman in a Christian marriage.
Not only that, but a man can divorce his wife and send her away simply on the suspicion of adultery. No proof is needed! Once again, Jerome enlightens us:
“Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives.”
So, there is the Christian logic that we all know about. Since mere suspicion is enough to divorce one’s wife, the law prohibits the man from taking a second wife because he may have made up the charges against the first wife in order to dissolve the marriage! Wouldn’t it have been better to not allow a man to divorce his wife simply on the suspicion that she committed adultery instead of actual evidence? This is why Christianity is not a rational religion. Christians in the west have tried to pull wool over people’s eyes by creating the illusion that Christian laws and secular laws are similar, but they are lying.
The Quran and Bible Blog 
Dang…
Sometimes I wish Paulus would give an articulate and robust answer because I’m genuinely curious about what response one could logically give. But we will just have to settle for ad hominem attacks and tu quoque fallacies.
P.S. Does anyone know which church he’s referring to as “the Church”? Is it the Roman Catholic, Armenian, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic or Ethiopian because he talks as if “the Church” is one agreed upon entity. And if he favors one as the true Church why? Again general curiosity but I know the rebuttal is going to be along the lines of “You Muslims do this thing which is under completely different parameters and circumstances” and “random insult of Islam”.
Alas, interesting post-Faiz.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I assume it’s some type of Protestant church, maybe an extension of the Church of England. He’s from Australia so that’s a fair guess.
LikeLike
Yes, Christ and the church.
Since Jesus doesn’t divorce his bride, the church, nor should man.
I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make?
LikeLike
I understood you. I’m asking which of the six churches I listed is “the Church” and why? Also, anything to comment about regarding the article?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are denominations stew. The church universal encompasses them all in so far as they accept the creeds and confessions. Of course, each denomination has its own nuances on certain topics. As an example you cited the Ethiopian canon, which is rejected by the universal church as incorrect. Britney cited a fringe group on another topic. Citing fringe opinions and pretending they are the “church” is dishonest at best. I don’t think you’d accept the same approach applied to islamic thought. Would you?
LikeLike
LOL, we know that you call them “fringe groups” when they suit your purpose. Christians are like that when it comes to inconsistency. The beliefs of the early church, whether regarding the canon or anything else, are not from a “fringe group”. They are from the so-called “church universal” (boy that makes me laugh!!). Of course, there is no such thing as “church universal”. It’s just a pathetic attempt by Cerbie to show some Christian unity, which for the first 1800 years of Christianity never existed.
LikeLike
jesus told his pagan bride the instructions to stay within abusive marriage
there are many instructions in the bible for women to stay in abusivie marriage and take it even if they are getting raped.
“take up the cross”
“turn the other cheek”
“for whoever saves his life will….”
even when the pals are told to live under persecution (mk 13.9:13) one should “endure till the end”
jesus is training them to be willing victims of rape, abuse, pain and suffering .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, church teachings are pretty clear in encouraging Christians to tolerate suffering. Paul said the same for slaves, that they should willingly serve their masters. Instead of calling for the end of slavery, Paul made excuses to continue it. Similarly, the church’s teachings on marriage and divorce forbid an abused spouse from leaving the marriage. Instead, they are supposed to work through it. They can be “separated” but they can never be divorced.
LikeLike
LOL, what happened Cerbie? Why the muted response? Does the teaching of the early church embarrass you somewhat?
The point is that your crocodile tears for Muslim women are nothing but a farce, a deceitful tactic you use to demonize Islam. Your religion, it has been shown, is atrociously irrational when it comes to practical laws on marriage and divorce. Your religion would imprison people in unhappy marriages, even violent ones, all in the name of supposed “holiness”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Embarrassed? By what? Truth and rationality. Nah
Christians have a strong view of marriage because it is a covenant. It is based on Christ’s example. Citing “violence” as an example only demonstrates how desperate you are. Of course a woman has the right to remove herself from such a situation for safety.
Islam, on the contrary treats a woman like chattel. Disposed of when the mans desire is finished.
Now, talking of silence, I’m still waiting for you to provide a Koranic verse that gives women permission to divorce their husbands for simply loosing desire. C’mon Britney, stop running now
LikeLike
HAHAHAHA, look at the desperate dog of hell! Now he’s contradicting the “example of Christ and the church”!
“Of course a woman has the right to remove herself from such a situation for safety.”
WRONG!! The poor woman can NEVER be divorced from her husband. Separation is not divorce. They are expected to try to work things out. So basically, the woman has to live in fear but hope that her abusive husband will eventually come around. That’s Christian logic for ya! Keep them married but separate, even if they remain separated for years!
Oh and what happened to “turn the other cheek”, Cerbie? Aren’t Christians supposed to be patient in the face of violence? Where did Jesus say “turn the other cheek…and run”? Face it. You are applying your secular ideals to the irrational beliefs of your religion. No use denying it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which crosstian text says that a abused crosstian “dog” (your gentile women are the [edited out] of the children) can SEPARATE/commit ADULTERY for SAFETY REASONS ?
A little female [edited out] is supposed to ENDURE till the end and TAKE up her cross and turn the other cheek
LikeLike
Brother Tony, please watch your language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yeah ,they r not suppose to run and endure TILL the end
Mark 13:9,13
LikeLiked by 1 person
i find it funny that he said “remove herself for safety”
but they r suppose to be one flesh , beatings cannot separate one flesh. the woman is joined to the hip and has to endure beatings
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cerbie is a secular Christian. He is embarrassed by the doctrines of his religion. He knows stuff like that won’t fly in modern Australia!
LikeLike
there is a reason why i used the word “bitch”
1.jesus addressed a woman in matt 15:22-28
2. Sharon Ringe said ‘to compare a woman and her daughter to dogs is INSULTING in the extreme’
3. Havalos said
…the application of ‘dynamic equivalence ‘ which is often used to mitigate some of jesus’ statements can also be used to justify a more degrading term in english . As tom a burkill observes ..
To call a woman “a little bitch ” is no less ABUSIVE than to call her ‘a bitch’ without qualification.
…even the dogs eat the crumbs…..
so as you can see i had no intention to cause offense , i was only putting jesus’ words in modern terms .but i will be careful to use appropriate language next time
LikeLike
Where did I say divorce? I said remove herself from a violent situation. That’s what the fathers say in those quotes.
You’re so desperate for anything you seem to imagine things I’ve never said.
Look everyone, he’s still running. Where’s the Koranic verse Britney. Or will you admit that it doesn’t exist and that according to islamic dogma a woman is not permitted to divorce her husband for loosing desire like the husband?
LikeLike
Where do the fathers say this, idiot? They are all talking about divorce. Stop trying to insert your secular beliefs into their writings!
Who said that a Muslim woman has to have the same divorce rights as a man? You are again applying secular ideals. When will you get it through your head that secularism does not dictate what Islam (or Christianity for that matter) teaches? The church fathers all were unanimous
that a woman cannot even initiate a divorce at all. In Islam, on the other hand, a woman can get a divorce under certain situations.
LikeLike
“Where did I say divorce? I said remove herself from a violent situation. That’s what the fathers say in those quotes.”
WHERE DOES the text SEPARATE “one flesh” ?
LikeLike
Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?
However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…
‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’
As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17
‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’
jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent
the bad jesus
page 93-94
///////////////////////////////////
now lets think about this. lets forget havalos points and lets plug in the christian beliefs into the verse about division.
SINCE jewish women accepted krist as their “saviour” who “shed his blood” then they would have offended their jewish husbands, right? so doesn’t this mean that those jewish women had to bear the abuse and violence of their abusive husbands?
isn’t it the christians who SPIN luke and say that “accepting jesus” will cause DIVISION WITHIN families?
a divided family implies FAMILY strife and jesus tells the people within that family to TURN the other cheek and BEAR the abuse.
LikeLike
it is strange that nt jesus considers divorce to be “adultery” .
yhwh was tolerating “adultery” for thousands of years ?
since ot yhwh understood the human condition, then ot yhwh should be chosen over “man god” .
and what is interesting is that in ot a RAPISt can never divorce his wife ever again? what went wrong there? this HARD hearted rapist will all of a sudden have softer heart after 2 years of marriage?
jesus says you can “separate…do ADULTERY….divorce” if your partner (in secular christian society who is your partner? faggot, lezbian, transgener ? ) has done adultery .
LikeLike
muhammad told ppl that if they are infected with plague,they should not leave the place.
If you hear outbreak of plague ,do not enter the place where outbreak has taken place
kristian religion says “to eat with UNWASHED hands does not defile”
now tell me, when your countries were shot with plagues you dirty europeans should have followed muhammads advice. Muhammads advice would have saved millions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
White christianities love for muslims
this is the group scum like paulus come from.
LikeLike
@ Paulus
What evidence do you have to state a woman can leave for safety reasons? For you to create an exception you need to have an explicit statement or action from Jesus(as) clarifying the matter. Even in this article, it appears, the Early Church Fathers understood that this was the ruling as well. As it stands Jesus(as) is supposed to have made a general command with one exception:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9)
Even when he is asked to elaborate further he is said to have said it’s better not to be married period:
His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”
“Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered, “but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matt 19:10-12)
If the best people are those who aren’t married (which is strange) who is going to take care of women or how is the human population going to survive if everyone became Christian tomorrow? Also, what is adultery’s definition? Not to be crude, but is bumping and grinding or oral sex considered adultery?
Paulus, this opens up a whole range of issues other than abuse. What about if a husband abandons his wife and children for years and isn’t supporting them? What if the husband goes to jail for years and the wife is starting to have desires but can’t fulfill them? What if the husband is for years asking his wife to do something sexually sinful? What about if the wife isn’t sexually satisfied by her husband? What about if one of them apostates and becomes a pagan or an atheist? These are all REAL reasons I have seen people divorce for. So no one is desperate were showing why God allowed divorce. Yes, I agree marriage is a contract. However, the contract is me and this woman are doing everything we can to get each other to Heaven. If she or I am making the other worse at worshipping God then we need to be away from each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the exception of when a spouse becomes an apostate, all of the other scenarios do not serve as legitimate reasons in Christianity to get a divorce. Even the scenario of a spouse being an apostate was a later development among Christians. Jesus never said anything about it. It was Paul who expressed this opinion when Christians in his time were faced with such problems (1 Corinthians 7). Even then, Paul was of the view that divorce was allowed only when the unbelieving spouse abandoned the believing spouse. So, we can say that Jesus’ original rule was abrogated and an extra scenario was added due to extenuating circumstances.
In any case, there is no other scenario, besides adultery or apostasy, where a Christian can get a divorce. This is more evidence of how irrational this religion truly is.
LikeLike
I want to wait for Paulus to answer but even if this was a case of abrogation by Paul. What was Paul’s evidence for the abrogation? No Sahaba or in Pauls case (“Tabieen”) has the ability to overwrite what Prophet Muhammad(saw) said. They can only make rulings in the case where there is silence on (which is not the case here) or there is a basis that the Prophet(saw) did. An example is Tarweeh prayer. So that still doesn’t help. At best you could say some early Christians allowed for apostasy but in reality, this would be rejected because Jesus(as) stated the exception and (unless there is a disciple who states otherwise) silence from those who learned directly from him.
Alhamdulillah Allah allowed divorce because I’ve seen bad relationships make people’s faith go just downhill…
LikeLike
Christina believe Paul’s writings were inspired. Only Muslims try to put Paul against Christ.
LikeLike
Christianity is not legalistic – it is the spirit of the law that should be followed and underscoring it are the most important commandments to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.
It is, therefore, in the spirit of the law as stated above to permit abusiveness in marriage?
LikeLike
crosstianity is LEGALISM based on jesus’ NEW definition and jesus says that “let no one SEPARATE what god has ordained”
notice how you pagan secular crosstians need to REDEFINE “turn the other cheek”
“endure till the end”
“take up your cross”
because your FALSE prophet jesus NEVER returned to take VENGEANCE.
you are now governed under SYSTEMS which protect women’s rights, what choice have you but to PRETEND to be persecuted and wear crosses made out of silver and gold?
“most important commandments to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.”
but to love entails violence and suffering in the new testaments definition ,
VIOLENCE is one of the KEY ELEMENTS of “love” in the nt . BEING object of SUFFERING and violence is LOYALTY to yhwh.
when jesus tells christians to give there cheeks
the greek word employed “could also involve hitting someone with a weapon as bdag notes , ‘almost ALWAYS in non-biblical authors strike with a club or rod…
so it is not only HAND strike
LikeLike
“commandments to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
It is, therefore, in the spirit of the law as stated above to permit abusiveness in marriage?”
but there is also command that if your NEIGHBOUR smacks you in the face , then you SHOULD show the other cheek.
jesus said :
Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
this has to OVERRIDE any reason to separate because this is “god joined together”
what “god joined together” overrides abuse in marriage.
the wife who is being ABUSED has to show her love to her abusive HUSBAND hoping he will change, just like the canaanite woman HOPING she would get a RESPONSE after she makes herself into an animal near the childrens feet.
LikeLike
@ Joel
Hi Joel. First, let me begin by welcoming you to the blog.
I agree that there shouldn’t be any abuse in marriage. However, a commentator in a previous article had attempted to claim that Muslim women cannot divorce their husbands (which is not true) as well as that divorce is wrong. So the author had made this article to show that it’s the opposite in fact.
I also agree with you that, for the most part, Christianity is not legalistic. However, on this particular issue, we can’t even say this was the Old Covenant because according to the OT one could divorce for any reason. Jesus(as) is supposed to have made this law and he did not place any exceptions except adultery. If someone wants to claim that they have God’s Word then logically we have to follow whatever is in the text or else we’re manipulating Scripture.
Now for me personally, it’s things such as this which one of my main issues with Christianity. I don’t personally believe it gives a full practical framework for all of mankind to follow. And what I mean by this is yes some of the principles are good but because it really doesn’t have any rules it’s kinda chaotic. And of the few rules given to Christians are problematic from a practical standpoint.
LikeLike
“I also agree with you that, for the most part, Christianity is not legalistic. ”
legalistic
liːɡəˈlɪstɪk/Submit
adjective
adhering excessively to law or formula.
yahweh commanded not to add to or subtract from the rules he would be making (Deuteronomy 4:2), jesus MADE THE rule on DIVORCE greater than strict. he said that divorce = adultery . the law now is divorce = adultery.
considering that a christian would think that divorce = adultery and is law, why would he not adhere excessively to this belief and law in his religion?
LikeLike
Joel you should of seen these guys panic not knowing whether Bilal will apostasise
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, are you still on this Cerbie? Hahahahaha! You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with brother Paul, not to mention other Muslims.
Hey guys, isn’t it cute how Cerbie is trying to form a tag-team with Joel? Awww, that is just soooo adorable!
LikeLike
stew
Christianity is simple – going against the commands of christ/god is tantamount to adultery. The church – and Yahweh’s relationship to his people – is spoken of as the bride of the lord. When the hebrews of ancient israel broke the lord’s commandments they were regularly called harlots. Thus, breaking the most important commandment by not loving others as you love yourself would make you a harlot in god’s eyes – so abuse is tantamount to adultery/harlotry.
So, yes, the other christian commenter is correct: divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery.
LikeLike
This is precisely why Christianity is just not a rational religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Joel! Are you the same as our beloved Coco from BloggingTheology? If so, I hope you stick around because I got some questions for ya! 😉
If not, then welcome to the blog. I hope your stay will be enlightening, unlike your canine brother Cerbie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just like Cerbie, you are inserting your own opinions into this issue. Where does it say that an abused woman can separate from her husband while he is abusive to her? How is that fair to the woman? She has to live in fear because your allegedly non-legalistic religion will not allow her to get a divorce?
And why shouldn’t she actually just “turn the other cheek”? I thought you guys were big on that?
LikeLike
Um, yes because Jesus never said that a woman can separate from her husband in the case of abuse. Moreover, Genesis 3 states that man will rule over woman. Finally, the church fathers, especially Jerome, said nothing about allowing a woman to separate from her abuser, let alone allowing her to get a divorce.
LikeLike
“commandments to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.”
hey kev,brian, joel
what is a christian to do with an abusive neighbour ? love or call the police?
LikeLike
It’s not an exception because I’m talking about divorce. I agree with the fathers.
Can you answer what Britney won’t. Where is the ayat that allows women to divorce their husbands for loosing desire?
LikeLike
You don’t need an ayat for a law. There is not even an ayat that a man can divorce a woman for lack of desire. A woman can divorce for any reason as long as she simply returns her dowry she’s given at marriage. I posted multiple evidences in the previous post using the same scholar you attempted to use as proof so you may look there.
Next, the exception is in divorce. I asked what is the evidence you have that a woman may divorce for abuse reasons? (Or any of the reasons I listed) Or and I’m asking for clarification are you saying that she is to be separated from him and then reunited with the husband later because you criticised that in the last post.
LikeLike
To repeat- I’m not advocating divorce.
Second, your Hadith didn’t demonstrate what you concluded. Your very scholars said that it is the husband who has to issue the divorce.
What you’ve demonstrated is that the Koran is insufficient. Your “law” is based not on the words of your god
LikeLike
Oh silly Cerbie, your question has been answered already.
Now, where did the fathers say that a woman can be “separated” from her abusive husband, while not getting a divorce? You’re adding your own opinions into the mix. Bad crosstian! Also, the fact that you agree with the “fathers” that an abused woman can NEVER be divorced from her abusive husband shows just how diseased your mind has become due to the corrupting influence of Christianity! It’s also why no one takes your crocodiles tears for Muslim women seriously. You have exposed yourself as a liar for Jesus. No use trying to cover it up now! Bwhahahaha!
LikeLike
@QB check your inbox ma chère
LikeLiked by 1 person
*mon cher
LikeLike
Got it. I will check it out when I have a chance. Thanks!
LikeLike
@ Tony
Joel was very respectful in his comment. So don’t insult remember Allah says:
Do not argue with the people of the Scripture unless it’s in a manner that is better, except with those of them who do evil or commit injustice… (29:46)
LikeLiked by 1 person
can you show me even one place where i have insulted? joel is respectful? hahahaha
LikeLike
you are right about the ayah akhi, i agree. one should be respectful .
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are old time nemeses as far as i know, the last time i saw them fighting was last year…
LikeLike
@ Shaad
Ah.. okay that makes more sense now.
LikeLike
shaad, do you know this scholar
http://www.postost.net/front2
good stuff on christology
thought i let you know
LikeLiked by 1 person
Needed something to pull me out of boredom and we have Monsieur Heathcliff who comes to the rescue. I’m pretty surprised that i’ve never heard of that fellow but his articles seems enough luciferous to put me in an enjoyable 12 hour obambulation on his website. Thanks mate 👍
LikeLike
Britney trolls other blogs and spams links to here. He’s desperate for attention.
When the christians leave, the place turns silent. He owes me royalties for traffic 😂😂
Anyway, enough attention for this little muhammadan
LikeLike
Also, you said you’re not advocating for divorce. So then in the case of spousal abuse, a Christian woman has to stay with her husband hen correct?
Finally, you said Paul’s writings were inspired sooo…. is Paul equal to Jesus(as) then? Because he made an exception that Jesus(as) didn’t make. And provided no evidence from Jesus(as) as a basis for it. As a branch off question did Paul know his writings were inspired and would be used as “Scripture”?
LikeLike
LOL, are you really this petty Cerbie? I’m beginning to think you are some overweight, unemployed loser who just trolls Muslim websites whenever he’s bored. Am I right? 😉
LikeLike
You got me.
Since that is a perfect description of a muhammadan, I guess I better convert, ey?
“Unemployment rates among Muslims are more than double that of any other community in the UK“
Same in Australia
“Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are also three times more likely than European or Asian immigrants to be out of work in the first five years of settlement. And their 33 per cent jobless rate is six times higher than the national average.“
“Muslim women are three times as likely to be unemployed, and twice as likely not to be in the jobs market in the first place, compared to women generally”
It’s the Christian work ethic that makes the west so successful unlike your co-religionists.
LikeLike
Hahahaha, well that reflects more on those countries, doesn’t it? If you compare American Muslims to their European counterparts, the former are much more educated and successful: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1214/Hindus-Muslims-among-America-s-best-educated-groups-report-finds
“Hindus and Muslims are two of the most highly educated religious groups in the United States, a new survey from the Pew Research Center has found.
Hindus living in the US have, on average, nearly 16 years of education, and Muslims nearly 14 years, making them the first and third most educated religious groups in the country. American Jews come in second, with just under 15 years of schooling, and US Christians have an average just under 13 years.”
As for the UK, there are a variety of factors for the low employment rates, including discrimination:
“Research elsewhere has indicated one in 4 employees will admit to being reluctant to hire Muslim women due to concerns they will put family commitments and caring duties above their professional duties” (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-more-likely-to-be-unemployed-than-any-other-social-group-in-the-uk-mps-warn-a7185451.html).
I like how you don’t provide links for the articles you quote. Maybe it’s because you don’t want the full story to be told, just like a liar for Jesus. Here is one of the main reasons for high unemployment rates in Australia:
“Australian National University economist Bob Gregory said most Middle Eastern migrants were refugees, and English language skills were “crucial’’ to finding work.
“Refugees have very high unemployment and this lasts for a very long time,’’ Emeritus Professor Gregory said.
“Asian migrants are nearly all tertiary graduates and study here — this makes job finding easier.’’” (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/migrants-unemployment-rate-among-new-australians-doubles/news-story/8211ef023e576933198a9256248712ed)
““Refugees can make significant economic contributions to Australia by helping to fill labour shortages,’’ a spokesman said.
“Like any other significant number of new migrants, they bring a range of skills, knowledge, and innovative work and business practices’’.”
““The name ‘Mohammad’ could put people off and women have an issue if they wear the hijab,” he said. “That becomes more of an issue if (job applications) include a photo.””
So, your idiotic assertion that Muslims are unemployed because of their work ethic is debunked. When will you learn, you silly pagan?
But it gets worse for you. Here is what another study shows about Muslims in general:
“Australian Muslims’ level of educational attainment compares favourably with the total population. In general Australian Muslims are more likely to have completed Year 12 or attained a BA/postgraduate qualification than the Australian population. On the other hand, in the Year 11 and below and certificate/diploma/associate diploma categories Muslims are under-represented compared to the total Australian population. These
differences are likely to be related to their different age structures” (https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/EASS/MnM/Publications/Australian_Muslims_Report_2015.pdf).
“There are distinct gender differences in education attainment. Both male and female Muslims have lower proportions of education to only Year 11 and higher proportions of Year 12 qualifications than all Australians. For both genders the proportion with certificate/diploma/associate degrees are lower, but Muslim males have a significantly higher proportion of BA/postgraduate qualifications than all Australians and this is not the case for females. Their proportion is slightly lower than for all Australians.”
“For any level of educational attainment the expected weekly income tends to be lower for Muslims and lower for migrants, and more so for Muslim migrants. This econometric model controls for a number of important factors such as English language ability, age and time migrants have spent in Australia (see Table 36). Therefore the lower returns to education might result from prejudice and systematic discrimination.”
“The researchers used distinctively Anglo-Saxon, Indigenous, Italian, Chinese and Middle Eastern (Muslim) names on fictitious job applications to measure labour market discrimination in Australia. In all cases the researchers applied for entry-level jobs and submitted a CV indicating that the candidate had attended high school in Australia. The study found significant differences in call-back rates. Ethnic minority candidates
needed to apply for more jobs to get the same number of interviews as Anglo-Saxon candidates. People with Middle Eastern/Muslim names faced the most discrimination. In another study Australians with Middle Eastern/Muslim backgrounds were 14% less likely to be employed than those with Australian backgrounds, compared to about 12% for Chinese and 10% for Indigenous names.”
So, discrimination is a major factor for the wide disparity in employment rates among Muslims. That speaks volumes about your countrymen, rather than about Muslims. It also speaks volumes about how much of a loser you really are! So desperate to smear Muslims rather than being honest. Such a good Christian zombie!
But this really made me laugh:
“It’s the Christian work ethic that makes the west so successful unlike your co-religionists.”
LOL!! What a surprise! A Christian zombie is trying to take credit for the success of the SECULAR West! No, Cerbie. Christianity is not the reason. The West started to progress when Christianity’s power in the state began to decrease.
LikeLike
I didn’t just quote that hadith (which every scholar concluded btw as evidence) I quoted the scholar you quoted and he gave multiple reasons I’m just not reposting again.
Finally, you’re making the claim that Muslim women can’t initiate a divorce so you have to bring the evidence that they can’t.
LikeLike
“To repeat- I’m not advocating divorce.”
we forgot about the children. ever spoken to 4 year old who see their parents fight each other? any christian woman who stays with abusive husband and has her children see the abuse, is selfish for jesus, because she does not care about the psychological abuse children will have to go through. you don’t want to advocate divorce because jesus made you selfish christian who only wants to obey jesus’ legalism.
LikeLike
“Christianity is simple – going against the commands of christ/god is tantamount to adultery. The church – and Yahweh’s relationship to his people – is spoken of as the bride of the lord. When the hebrews of ancient israel broke the lord’s commandments they were regularly called harlots. Thus, breaking the most important commandment by not loving others as you love yourself would make you a harlot in god’s eyes – so abuse is tantamount to adultery/harlotry.
So, yes, the other christian commenter is correct: divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery.”
the thing is that the old testament never called divorce adultery.
yhwh was doing divorce all the time, he even divorced israel.
yhwh said that the crime of adultery deserves execution
yhwh even informs WHEN divorce is permitted.
jesus says that ADULTERY should NOT BE PUNISHED, which means jesus, according to the “new covenant” is TAKING the severity out of DIVORCE/adultery .
so when crosstian DIVORCES/does ADULTERY , jesus in new COVENANT has NO earthly punishment in mind, jesus HAS renedered yhwhs RULES on ADULTERY USELESS and SEVERITY of the CRIME useless , it is just “wash yourself in blood of jesus”
LikeLike
“Thus, breaking the most important commandment by not loving others as you love yourself would make you a harlot in god’s eyes – so abuse is tantamount to adultery/harlotry.”
so when do you turn the other cheek willingly?
do you willingly GIVE your other cheek ?
when does a woman who is smacked by her husband willingly give the other cheek? jesus didn’t even give you crosstians a limit.
jesus told his followers the following :
“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,[a] will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
“As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10 And the good news[a] must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
how is it that an ABUSED christian woman is not ALLOWED to plug this in her life and remain abused?
jesus tells his followers to BECOME victims .
LikeLike
the reason why jesus didn’t say
“except it be for adultery and abuse….” is because the text is ALL about SUFFERING and how one SHOULD willingly SUFFER.
christians are ashamed of jesus’ words and are ADDING more conditions to divorce .
look at this SHAMELESS distortion of the text
“….so abuse is tantamount to adultery/harlotry”
you see , this is not in the text, becaause entire theme of mark, matthew and luke is to make yourself WILLINGLY suffer.
LikeLike
” breaking the most important commandment by not loving others as you love yourself would make you a harlot in god’s eyes ”
but the VICTIM is suppose to ENDURE till the end and take up ROMAN tool of execution and suffering. why are you ashamed of jesus’ words that you have to ADD in new conditions?
the ABUSED victim would know that
” what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
if god joined you to rapist you can NEVER separate , yhwh said so.
if god joined you to ABUSER, you can never separate, because THE most important thing here
“god has JOINED together”
you can be HARLOT in gods eyes, the VICTIM of abuse has to TURN the other cheek.
LikeLike
@ Joel
What? No offense but that explanation makes no sense.
First off the context alone refutes this
He(as) is being asked by the Jews about divorce not about disobeying God. Afterward, when asked for a further explanation he then is supposed to have said it’s better not to be married at all.
http://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/19.htm#fnc
The word used is πορνείᾳ all of the times it is used in the NT it is referring to sexual immorality
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/19-9.htm
The only commentary who even remotely tried to answer this is Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers and their explanation has no basis. Their using hardness of the heart as grounds but Jesus(as) according to Matt did not say that and it’s manipulating the text. Jesus doesn’t even quote any verse in the OT to support your interpretation (actually I don’t think think use this analogy once in any of the gospels). There is simply nothing within the text to support any of these explanations. The Early Church fathers agree that the wife is not able to leave. Jerome clearly states about abuse and neglect:
“Do not tell me about the VIOLENCE of the RAVISHER…or about HOUSEHOLD[financial] LOSSES. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband STILL and she may not take another.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I don’t know why some of your comments go through while others require moderation. Just letting you know, it’s not me. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Joel
As I thought about the context more another reason the explanation doesn’t make sense is that the Jews were able to divorce for any reason previously so Jesus(as) saying “except adultery” would be redundant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point!
LikeLiked by 1 person
joel,brian , kel …. cannot bring any ancient commentary to prove that ABUSE = adultery.
he is doing his own modern day qiyaas
what his spin does is render loving enemies who abuse you as useless, because u have to do qiyaas on that too
turning the other cheek has to have qiyaas done on it too
LikeLike
Stew
Your answer seems confused. I not understanding how you can reasonably say that not following the teaching of god is somehow not about “disobeying” god?
Marriage and divorce are conducted within the context of Yahweh’s laws and commandments – surely you can see that not abiding by these laws is disobeying? It seems extremely straight-forward to me.
God in the OT regularly refers to His disobedient people as harlots who commit adultery because they disobey by breaking his laws. Jesus is echoing this in his teaching about divorce – the greatest commandments are to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love others as you love yourself.
All the prophets and the law hang in these two commandments.
Thus, abusing your wife is sinful, and makes you a law-breaker in Yahweh’s eyes, and a harlot and adulterer – as he has described lawbreakers in he OT.
LikeLike
“Marriage and divorce are conducted within the context of Yahweh’s laws and commandments ”
– surely you can see that not abiding by these laws is disobeying? It seems extremely straight-forward to me.”
and what happens when an ABUSED woman does not “turn the other cheek”
“take up her cross”
“love her enemies”
how is she to obey these commands if she calls the police or if she separates from “one flesh” ?
“God in the OT regularly refers to His disobedient people as harlots who commit adultery ”
he even ALLOWS divorce for reasons other than adultery and he never called divorce “adultery”
”
Jesus is echoing this in his teaching about divorce – the greatest commandments are to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love others as you love yourself.”
yes, EVEN an ABUSIVE neighbour, so what is your point ?
”
”
Thus, abusing your wife is sinful, and makes you a law-breaker in Yahweh’s eyes, and a harlot and adulterer – as he has described lawbreakers in he OT.”
so a woman who is in abusive marriage should bear the abusive, hoping that the abuser change his ways, that gives the woman no reason to leave her husband.
LikeLike
@ Joel
You’re bringing two unrelated concepts together to attempt to form your own personal ruling. The explanation doesn’t make sense because
1. The Jews were able to divorce for any reason previously so Jesus(as) adding the stipulation “except adultery” is redundant then. He has clearly abrogated the law of being able to divorce for any reason except adultery.
2. More importantly, he is supposed to have been asked for more clarification on the issue. And he didn’t say anything that you’re currently saying. He is alleged to have said it’s better NOT TO GET MARRIED because this rule is difficult. So are you saying that he means it’s too difficult to not treat your wife respectfully then?
3. Are you bringing the OT into rulings or not? Why is it that the OT is being used in this matter but not in others then?
4. God is supposed to have been talking to Israel not Christians. And he never describes Christians as a “bride” so your analogy is flawed. You cannot use what God said to one nation and apply it to yourself.
5. No Scholarly commentary agrees with what you’re saying.
6. No early Church Father agree with what you’re saying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hey joel,
can you explain how is the fathers “one person” different than my “one person”?
since a human will exist without body, how is the “one person” different from “one person” in the trinity ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
stew
“1. The Jews were able to divorce for any reason previously so Jesus(as) adding the stipulation “except adultery” is redundant then. He has clearly abrogated the law of being able to divorce for any reason except adultery.”
Huh? Jesus is clarifying the law within the context of the spirit of the law as contextualized by the two most important commandments that “all the prophets and law” hangs on. Abrogation is not the issue, so your point is moot.
“2. More importantly, he is supposed to have been asked for more clarification on the issue. And he didn’t say anything that you’re currently saying. He is alleged to have said it’s better NOT TO GET MARRIED because this rule is difficult. So are you saying that he means it’s too difficult to not treat your wife respectfully then?”
The spirit of the law as taught by Our Lord Jesus, encourages reason, not mindless adherence to the “expertise” of guardians of the law. Jesus’ ministry condemned pharisaic legalism that drew heavily from human traditions, not from revelation. Islam as practiced by most muslims would be condemned by Jesus for this reason. For some strange reason, you seem to think that divorce is not related to obedience to god’s laws, and Jesus’ teachings. The basis of all the laws is to love others as you love yourself, and to love god.
You love god by doing what he says which means loving others as you would love yourself. Thus,abusing your wife is disobedience to Yahweh and his Son Jesus. It really is not that difficult. You are over thinking this.
“3. Are you bringing the OT into rulings or not? Why is it that the OT is being used in this matter but not in others then?”
Not sure what point you are making here. Where did I do this?
“4. God is supposed to have been talking to Israel not Christians. And he never describes Christians as a “bride” so your analogy is flawed. You cannot use what God said to one nation and apply it to yourself.”
God’s people are his bride, christians are Jesus’ people, Jesus is God, christians are the bride of christ. Again, as jesus teaches us, the law is meant to make us think through filter of the two most important commandments, not follow religious leaders who do our thinking for us.
“5. No Scholarly commentary agrees with what you’re saying.”
This is a mere appeal to authority, and completely irrelevant. The teaching is self-evident.
“6. No early Church Father agree with what you’re saying.”
And? See above. The words of our lord jesus are living words from which new revelations are drawn throughout time.
So, in summary, you have not in the least shown that my explanation lacks merit. Christians can divorce in cases of abuse and neglect since it violates the spirit of the law as stipulated by the two most important ones. Disobeying Jesus, is to disobey God making you and adulterer and harlot.
LikeLike
LOL, see Stew? These guys are so desperate, they will cast aside anything that disagrees. No scholarly support? Oh well, the teaching is “self-evident”. No church father agrees? Oh well, the “words” of Jesus can be reinterpreted “throughout time” as “new revelations”. Hmm, sounds rather convenient, doesn’t it? That’s Christianity for you. Unreasonable, contradictory, deceitful. No wonder it’s dying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bro faiz, there is nothing in this persons reply which has brought anything new. it is forcing everything under the bus called “love” and ignoring that god himself done the marriage of people. if god is doing the marriage, a crosstian cannot make new exceptions because exceptions have been “fulfilled” . and love can entail violence,this is all throughout the nt,sp a crosstian woman who is beaten black and blue could see it as disciplinary and loving act.
LikeLike
@ Paulus
Completly unrelated to the topic. However, since you brought it up it was not “”Christian work ethic” that elevated the West. Depending on where you’re from it was among the following:
1. Destruction of a native population (Aboriginal, “Americans” Indian or the various pre-Colombian tribes in South America)
2. Enslavement of Africans which produced free labor. Screwing over said Africans when they were “freed” by systematic oppression since ohh… around 1960 but not after assassinating or imprisoning key members of the community. And then giving various mortgages which exploited their money and seized their homes leaving nothing for their succeeding generations forcing them into various ghettos.
3. Exploitation of various Irish, Chinese and Italians immigrants producing more cheap labor.
4. Colonization of various peoples exploiting and seizing their resources unjustly. Also as a bonus, not allowing them “independence” for years until the 60s-90s. And even then are still heavily involved in their politics by the installation and support of oppressive puppet governments that the people don’t want.
5. Setting up various systems of “brain drain” or ridiculous interest rate loans knowing poorer countries will never be able to pay them back.
I’m sure I could think of more but this was just off the top of my head. (If anyone wants to add to it be my guest)
LikeLike
Britney brought it up.
I notice you are deathly silent on the unemployment issues in your community. And slaves, like how muhammad traded black slaves?
LikeLike
I don’t know which “community” you’re referring to there are over 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth. This is like me saying why are you so silent on murder rates in your community. Referring to 2 billion people.
Finally, he didn’t just own black slaves but nice emotional appeal. His adopted mother and son were black so there goes the “racism” argument. Plus if you really want to get into this during colonial slavery they very much used the Bible and the curse of Ham as a justification for the enslavement of Africans (plus there’s nothing in the NT that abolishes slavery so I really don’t suggest you get into that topic.)
But keeping it back on topic do you think its fair that Christian women can’t divorce their husband if he beats her or doesn’t support her and the children anymore?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, apparently Cerbie forgot that his savior never spoke against slavery. Not to mention his racist attitude to the Phoenician woman who was begging him to help her daughter.
But this is what we have come to expect from Cerbie. Nothing but bluster. No rational response, just crocodile tears and emotional hyperbole. Such a good crosstian!
LikeLike
a crosstian like joel needs to bring his proof for these claims, he wrote :
Jesus is echoing this in his teaching about divorce – the greatest commandments are to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love others as you love yourself.”
..
which verse in the ot says that if you do not love others, then you are an ADULTERER ?
REMEMBER , you made this definition, i want to see proof that the ot considers this to be the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
damn too many comments to read…@Anyone, what answer did they give on the question about whether a christian woman should divorce her abusive husband or not? Is it a “yes” or a “no”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, I don’t think even they know the answer to that question!
LikeLike
btw , did you know that honest crosstians believe both nt and ot support polygamy?
https://rickbeckman.org/log/bible-polygamists/
what an article and what a destruction of monogamist crosstians in the comment section. praise the lord !
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have said it before many times. Some modern Christians are simply too embarrassed by their religion, so they pretend that it conforms to modern secular norms. Whether it is polygamy, divorce, women’s rights, slavery, etc., they will try to line up Biblical teachings on these subjects in the best way possible so as to give the illusion that Christianity and secularism are very similar.
LikeLike
amen! lol
LikeLike
@ Shad
Basically, no textual proof to say they are allowed to leave for abuse of neglect (actual textual evidence to say to the contrary). They then tried to reinterpret “adultery” to mean any type of sin. I’ll give the relevant post and you decide if they answered the point:
“Christians have a strong view of marriage because it is a covenant. It is based on Christ’s example. Citing “violence” as an example only demonstrates how desperate you are. Of course a woman has the right to remove herself from such a situation for safety.” -Paulus
“Where did I say divorce? I said remove herself from a violent situation. That’s what the fathers say in those quotes. You’re so desperate for anything you seem to imagine things I’ve never said.” -Paulus
“stew
Christianity is simple – going against the commands of christ/god is tantamount to adultery. The church – and Yahweh’s relationship to his people – is spoken of as the bride of the lord. When the hebrews of ancient israel broke the lord’s commandments they were regularly called harlots. Thus, breaking the most important commandment by not loving others as you love yourself would make you a harlot in god’s eyes – so abuse is tantamount to adultery/harlotry. So, yes, the other christian commenter is correct: divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery.” – Joel
“God in the OT regularly refers to His disobedient people as harlots who commit adultery because they disobey by breaking his laws. Jesus is echoing this in his teaching about divorce – the greatest commandments are to love your god with all your heart and soul and to love others as you love yourself. All the prophets and the law hang in these two commandments. Thus, abusing your wife is sinful, and makes you a law-breaker in Yahweh’s eyes, and a harlot and adulterer – as he has described lawbreakers in he OT.”- Joel
If you want the response of the opposing side I’ll post them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep, much desperation from Cerbie and the like!
LikeLike
Textual proof? Are you serious? There are range of issues that scripture remains silent on. Islam is not excluded from this “normal” scenario.
Correct, there is no verse that says, “when a wife is abused she is to…”
However, we can deduce from scripture how to react in a given situation.
Joel is right. Covenantally as the bride of Christ we have a strong analogy combined with the textual history of Gods dealings with his people.
I’ve said a woman shouldn’t remain in an abusive situation. The muhammadan misuse of turning the other cheek is duly noted and scoffed at much like drinking camel urine
Finally, if a husband abuses his wife, remains unrepentant or does it again, it’s safe to assume he is not a Christian. In which case a whole host of relevant related texts come into play.
Now, in all of this red herring that you muhammadans have laboured for over a week now, and not a single one has provided any evidence from the Quran or Hadith that allows a woman to divorce her husband for simply loosing interest in him (a pathetic pisspoor example of relationship to begin with, but hey, were talking about the example of man who lists after his daughter in law)
P.s I again note how almost no content is provided or discussion provoked without Christians. Ergo, I still await my royalties
LikeLike
Cerbie, you need to get a real job. You won’t get any money here. If you need to panhandle, I’m sure the streets will bring you enough spending cash. Didn’t your Canaanite god give you some spending money? And how’s the job search going?
So after all this, the pathetic crosstians still cannot provide any evidence from their “scriptures” that would allow an abused woman to “separate” from her husband. Divorce is already out of the question because…well, simply because Christianity is not a practical religion. But the desperate crosstians still cannot explain on what grounds a woman can “separate”.
LikeLike
“I’ve said a woman shouldn’t remain in an abusive situation. The muhammadan misuse of turning the other cheek is duly noted and scoffed at much like drinking camel urine
Finally, if a husband abuses his wife, remains unrepentant or does it again, it’s safe to assume he is not a Christian. In which case a whole host of relevant related texts come into play.”
remember something ? the pharisees did not ask jesus WHEN divorce is allowed, they KNEW divorce WAS ALLOWED, they asked jesus ” is divorce allowed…”
crosstians are ASHAMED of their gods non-allowance of divorce.
NOW here is something funny.
crosstians have created few more exceptions
abuse
apostacy
adultery
quote :
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
jesoz:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
as we can see, jesus had the previous law in mind, and he does not allow for offensive and defensive position, he is telling the woman follower of jesus to keep her face open for whacking.
and notice the words “serious injury” ? it is possible jesus had in mind not simply a slap but even a tool , because in the law any dangerous item could be used to cause serious injury to the face.
quote :
“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save their lifeb will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
i know why crosstians are creating exceptions, they don’t believe jesus is coming back . hahahahahahaha
LikeLike
quote :
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelye but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
jesoz:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
some things i have noted
1. serious injury = life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth , hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound….
when a god became a man, he was clearly pathetic , wasn’t he? ot gives u a list . since jesus is having in MIND the verses from exodus, then question must be asked, what about striking other body parts, can one retaliate? but he talked about NOT resisting an evil person, so if an evil person WHACKS you with a weapon, does one turn the other cheek? if one BURNS you with a cigar, does one give something else to burn ?
how severe should the slap be? since jesus had in mind that there could be severe injury , then one should not resist these severe injuries and turn the other cheek.
there is absolutely no argument against this, jesus KNEW about being VICTIM of serious injuries, yet he told his pals to turn the other cheek, this can only mean that a crosstian should ALLOW himself to be severely beaten, lose tooth, loose eye , loose facial skin via burning etc etc
LikeLiked by 1 person
See Britney, I post two little comments and you get more interaction than you’ve had in the last week. What will you do when I leave? You’ll be back to your 11 likes, no content and no interaction.
So, don’t be so tight. Look, I won’t charge you interest cause I know you muhammadans don’t like that. Fair?
LikeLike
Thanks John, please don’t bother akhi, i found your response to him/her (been months and i’m still wondering whether Joel is a girl or not)
LikeLike
@ Paulus
To begin all I did was list facts so I don’t see what your upset about.
Next, what your attempting to do is establish a “proof by analogy”. However, the issue is you need textual evidence related to the subject to do so. I’ll give you an example, we have no evidence to state weed or crack is forbidden. What we do have is the verse “Oh you who believe khumr and gambling are forbidden…” Khumr(intoxicants) linguistically means that which covers your mind. So even though the verse was revealed for alcohol linguistically it covers any mind-altering substance. When paired with what the Prophet(saw) said “that which intoxicates in small amounts is forbidden in large amounts” we can cover weed and crack while dropping vinegar even though it has the same fermenting process as alcohol because you can never become drunk. I’ll now repost what I said earlier:
You’re bringing two unrelated concepts together to attempt to form your own personal ruling. The explanation doesn’t make sense because
1. The Jews were able to divorce for any reason previously so Jesus(as) adding the stipulation “except adultery” is redundant then. He has clearly abrogated the law of being able to divorce for any reason except adultery.
2. More importantly, he is supposed to have been asked for more clarification on the issue. And he didn’t say anything that you’re currently saying. He is alleged to have said it’s better NOT TO GET MARRIED because this rule is difficult. So are you saying that he means it’s too difficult to not treat your wife respectfully then?
3. Are you bringing the OT into rulings or not? Why is it that the OT is being used in this matter but not in others then?
4. God is supposed to have been talking to Israel not Christians. And he never describes Christians as a “bride” so your analogy is flawed. You cannot use what God said to one nation and apply it to yourself.
5. No Scholarly commentary agrees with what you’re saying.
6. No early Church Father agree with what you’re saying.
Moving on you’ve been provided evidence regarding a woman being able to divorce for any reason, you’re just choosing not too look. And I’m not reposting because this is not the area for it.
Finally, someone struggling with a sin does not affect their belief. There is a whole range of psychological issues that are caused by abuse. However to tell a woman to “remove her self and comeback” is horrible advice and it is HIGHLY likely abuse will start again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stew.
Have you even read the relevant text? Jesus answers your “objection”
“Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning“
So not redundant at all. Covenantally, the Jews were allowed to divorce because of their hard hearts (what does that say about Muslims?). Jesus appeals to creation. As the initiator of the new covenant, he is reinstating God original marital purpose. Points 1 and 2 refuted.
You complain about my analogy, but their are literally hundreds of texts on the covenantally relationship between God and his people. In both the Old and the New, His people are described as a “bride”. The NT even says that husbands are to love their wives like Christ loves the church. It logically follows then that spousal abuse is contrary to such. Points 3 and 3 refuted.
Point 5 is vague. No commentary agrees with what? That the church is the bride of christ?
Dr. Andreas Köstenberger, Senior Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He emphasizes that “marriage illustrates the principle of two becoming one, [a principle] which is also present in the spiritual union between Christ and the church (head and body; Ephesians 5:32).”
Refuted.
Finally, you provided no such thing. As I proved, the husband is the one that has to divorce his wife in Islam. If he says no, then no divorce. On the contrary he can simply say it three times and that’s it. The woman has no say. And yes, it’s completely relevant because this red herring that you are fixated on cane about by your reluctance to discuss the Islamic problem of muhammad lusting after his daughter in law until Allah miraculously gave him permission
LikeLike
@ Paulus
How did you refute 1,2 or 3?
Muslims have never argued its okay to divorce willy-nilly. I’m using the text itself which he clearly states the rule and it’s expalnation. You’ve provided no evidence that Jesus intended the argument your making. Where does he connect the point you’re saying to his ruling on divorce? Also, you said “he is reinstating God’s original marital purpose” so did Moses(as) “abrogate” the law then? And then Jesus(as) “abrogated” Moses’s “abrogation”? Also, do you see how you’ve separated Jesus(as) from God in your mind and how they are 2 different entities?
Point 4
Ephesians is not Jesus making the analogy, is it? Hey if you want to be God’s wife then don’t get upset at the rest of us thinking its’ blasphemy.
Point 5
I mean no commentary is using the “bride of Christ”, sin is adultery and therefore you can divorce for neglect or abuse. You have all pulled this from your derriere. All the Church Fathers agree and this is what the ENTIRE article above is about. And not one of you have proven otherwise.
Finally, regarding divorce in Islam (which isn’t even relevant to the article) you have not proved anything. You did a “reading between the line fallacy” and have been running with it. All the links I gave after your initial point is in that article. NO scholar has ever argued a Muslim woman can not initiate a divorce for any reason. The only argument upon divorce is is whether her dowry (the gift she is given at the beginning of the marriage) is returned. If he divorces her with or without grounds she keeps it. If she divorces him without grounds she returns it. (Unless of course, either party decides otherwise)
Dude, I personally know two women who got divorced because they weren’t attracted to their husbands. You’re not going to win this point just let it die.
LikeLike
You say muslims don’t divorce willy nilly but then proceed to claim you know two women who divorced because they werent attracted to their husbands. Do you hear yourself? I cant think of a better definition of “willy nilly” than what you provided 🙂
Where does Jesus connect all this? Seriously? In the very text I cited. Look it up. The pharisees ask him about divorce. Jesus tells them that Moses allowed them to divorce because their hearts were hard. Jesus says it was not like this in the beginning.
Honestly, you are so indoctrinated that you can only think in islamic terms. Christians understand the bible covenantly. It has a progression, a narrative. It begins with perfect creation, chronicles the sins of people and national Israel and finishes with the messiah initiating the kingdom. The New Covenant, which Jesus himself claimed to initiate, is fundamental to the progression. Muhammad was totally unaware of any of the former prophets which is clearly seen in islamic writings and perfectly personified in muhammadans like yourself. Its why he is rejected as a completely false prophet. He contradicts all the former prophets.
Again, and i know it hurts, but you dont get to dictate what is and isnt Christian scripture. You consistently try to isolate these discussion to the Gospels. Is that what they teach you at the madrassah? To make straw men? Our theology is based on the entirety of scripture, not what muhammadans only want to allow.
“I mean no commentary is using the “bride of Christ”, sin is adultery and therefore you can divorce for neglect or abuse. You have all pulled this from your derriere. ”
Well, now it all makes sense. You’ve drawn conclusion I or Joel never made. First, i already cited a NT scholar who connected Christian marriage with Christ and the church. So you are wrong. Second, I’ve repeatedly said that I wasn’t ever talking about divorce. I’m not sure ow many times i need to say it. If you want to create straw men, and then pretend that we never answer your questions, thats up to you. As it stands I refuted all your points and youve now made it clear that you dont actually understand what weve been trying to say.
Why wont you be honest. Sure, a woman might ask her husband for a divorce, but if he says no, then what? It doesnt happen. Its up to him. Stop pretending like this isnt true. However, the reverse is not the same. A husband can simply say talaaq three times and thats it. She has no say whatsoever. The more you lie the worse islam looks. Be truthful- doesnt the husband need to say yes to the divorce?
LikeLike
… he is reinstating God original marital purpose.”
THATS WHY he DOESN’T ALLOW DIVORCE LOL
you guys are shooting yourself in the face.
LikeLike
@ Joel
You have not answered any point of mine so I’ll respond when a proper argument is made. Jesus doesn’t even quote the two commandments within the chapter here read the whole chapter yourself:
http://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/19.htm#fnc
Your blatantly twisting your own text. And yes, you do see the difference between Muslims and Christians because we don’t twist our God’s Word to fit our desires. We have a concept of justice when it comes to the law for example. That doesn’ mean we can twist what a prophet said (which is revelation btw not human tradition) just because we perceive it as unjust. Which is the equivalent of the analogy you’ve given.
Finally, to end this “legalism” foolishness, common sense would dictate that God would send laws down in His religion because it comes with Him being the Most Wise and Just. God doesn’ leave humanity to just do whatever or else he hasn’t actually given guidance which is the ENTIRE point of revelation. He created us and knows what’ best for us from economics all the way o how to use the bathroom properly. You can’t argue “Jesus fulfilled the Law” (which requires adherence to a legal system btw) on one hand and in the same breath argue “Laws are bad” on the other.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is Christianity supposed to be some half-hearted attempt at anarchy? I don’t get it. Christians seem very confused on this matter.
LikeLike
stew
” Jesus doesn’t even quote the two commandments within the chapter here read the whole chapter yourself:………….Your blatantly twisting your own text. And yes, you do see the difference between Muslims and Christians because we don’t twist our God’s Word to fit our desires. ”
Seriously? I’ll try to make this as simple as possible. Here goes…..Jesus says that “all the prophets and the law” hangs the to commandments to love god with all your being and to love others as you love yourself. What is it about “ALL the prophets and law” that is hard to understand? I’m not twisting the text, you are being obtuse.
I’ll spell it out bro…..if ALL the law hangs on these two commandments, then any laws are subject to, and contextualized by them. Since Jesus is speaking about a LAW concerning divorce, this must mean that the two most important commandments – that ALL the laws hang on – must be understood through them.
Furthermore, Mat 19:4-11 shows how humans cannot possibly meet the standards of behaviour and conduct that is necessary to be in atonement with Yahweh. This destroys islam which is entirely legalistic and based in human traditions that are not revealed in the quran. No amount of bowing down, stepping into the toilet left foot first, or ritual washing can purify you enough to attain god’s grace. How absurd is that?
“Finally, to end this “legalism” foolishness, common sense would dictate that God would send laws down in His religion because it comes with Him being the Most Wise and Just. God doesn’ leave humanity to just do whatever or else he hasn’t actually given guidance which is the ENTIRE point of revelation. He created us and knows what’ best for us from economics all the way o how to use the bathroom properly. ”
Vast swathes of islamic law are not in the quranic revelation, but only appear in hadith tradition – i.e. man-made traditions alleged to have been practiced by mhammed. These traditions have little historical value, and thus, lack credibility. Take Sahih Bukhari – it first appeared two centuries after mohammed died and wasn’t even published in Bikharis own lifetime. We don;t even know if bukhari actually wrote it. These are not the laws of god, but of some unknown man writing decades and centuries after the quran was supposedly revealed, describing practices that are suspiciously similar to the existing traditions of the people of the time.
Jesus, on the other hand, teaches us the simple practice of loving others as the basis for all our actions, practices and laws. Thus, we are called to think and reason, and not blindly follow religious “experts”.
“You can’t argue “Jesus fulfilled the Law” (which requires adherence to a legal system btw) on one hand and in the same breath argue “Laws are bad” on the other.’”
Not sure what you are talking about here. Jesus teaches that laws are to be administered in the spirit of love, not according to the traditions of man.
LikeLike
when a human dies , his person lives on without body, how is the fathers ONE person different than the human person who lives on WITHOUt body? without looking at any OTHER attribute, how is the fathers one person different than a dead person who continues to live LOL
LikeLike
i’ve asked two scholars about your bs , here are the replies :
quote :
I do not think the abuse issue entered into the ancient Christian discourse. The only exception given (and it is given only in Matthew) is adultery.
“but then what happens to loving enemies, turning the other cheek…?”
That kind of love was to be rendered despite any abuse given in return.
quote :
From my perspective, it’s another situation where the person is grabbing at (metaphorical) straws from the OT to build a new perspective of the NT.
LikeLike
“The spirit of the law as taught by our lard jesus, encourages reason, not mindless adherence to the “expertise” of guardians of the law. Jesus’ ministry condemned pharisaic legalism…”
the “legalistic” pharisees ALLOWED divorce and used THEIR reasoning for when divorce was ALLOWED (EXCEPT for rapist) , jesus reasoning stopped working when he said ,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
“what god JOINED let no one separate”
so even an ABUSER (one) cannot SEPARATE what god JOINED to him .
jesus ON THE OTHER hand is telling the PHARISEES that DIVORCE is not ALLOWED, these are the same PEOPLE who ALLOWED divorce.
” that drew heavily from human traditions, not from revelation.”
they used their REASONING for when divorce is ALLOWED, jesus told them DIVORCE IS NOT ALLOWED.
“Islam as practiced by most muslims would be condemned by Jesus for this reason.”
islam allows abused woman to divorce
“For some strange reason, you seem to think that divorce is not related to obedience to god’s laws, and Jesus’ teachings. The basis of all the laws is to love others as you love yourself, and to love god.”
1. from biblical perspective is all mistreating and violence born out of HATE ? what do you say about a husband who hits his wife to discipline her? moses slaughtered children because he loved yhwh. moses slaughtered women because he loved god with all his heart.
2. a person could still claim to be loving his wife even if he is beating her, he could have his “righteous anger” reasons/moments.
3.jesus tells women to turn the other cheek, if women loved “new covenant” shouldn’t they passionately turn the other cheek?
”
You love god by doing what he says which means loving others as you would love yourself. Thus,abusing your wife is disobedience to Yahweh and his Son Jesus. It really is not that difficult. You are over thinking this.”
two gods there. jesus also says that anyone who looks at woman has already committed adultery. so now, any christian husband who does this has already committed adultery, so any married man who does this has already disobeyed god, does that mean christian women should divorce?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tony.
I’ll be honest. I almost never bother reading your comments because in the past they were incoherent and a waste of time. I didn’t even read this one. Just thought I’d let you know to save you the time spamming with numerous comments I don’t care about
LikeLike
do you remember when you got completely demolished on atheist matthew fergusons blog? You were wining like little girl and then you got a point by point demolition
LikeLike
Who? Is that some blog you go to to steal arguments to use?
You’ve got me confused with somebody else. Or you’re telling lies. Hopefully the former
LikeLike
@quranandbibleblog
Yes, I live in a strange world where adultery doesn’t mean adultery. And now Shaytan has allowed Christians to become even more indulged in their shirk to the point where they believe both males and females are Isa’s(as) wives and that they themselves are married to Allah. So not only did they give Allah a son (which is enough to make creation appalled), they are then married to said son who is by extension supposed to be Allah. So they have made themselves Allah’s wife, daughter in law and mother in law. Yes… this religion is the one that’s guided and this is what the Almighty wishes humanity to think of Him. (Authobillah)
LikeLiked by 1 person
astaghfirullah!
LikeLike
Yikes!
LikeLike
It’s a covenant analogy. You don’t accept it because muhammad contradicted ALL the former prophets on covenantal theology.
LikeLike
@ Joel
You don’t even know your own religion so please stay out of ours. Bukhari was not written “200 years after the Prophet(saw)” this is only what people who have no knowledge say. This is why no scholar past or present who has ever disputed hadith, just a bunch of ignorant laymen. He compiled his book from various sources and books which we have in our possession. To give you an idea how early were talking were talking collections written by “disciples” themselves. The earliest hadith collections we have are earlier than any of the gospel traditions in relation (I planned on doing a separate article on this) and we can visibly trace every hadith that is authentic. We use the major six mostly for convenience sake.
Next, we don’t believe anyone can earn they’re way into Heaven. Christians have this weird thing where they will make up people’s beliefs (like what they do with the Jews). We believe God’s mercy is why were are allowed into Heaven like Christians. God’s laws are so that we can live a happy and pure life worshipping Him.
And I’ll keep this argument simple. Are there laws in the OT and did Jesus(as) believe in and live by them? Yes or no answer, please.
LikeLike
stew
I know my religion quite well, thank you very much. And we both know that there is practically zero primary source material for bukhari. Let’s be honest. The bukhari’s work appeared 2 centuries after mohammed died, and was written by a persian hundreds of miles away from the area of the alleged events it describes. You just don;t know your own religion.
“We believe God’s mercy is why were are allowed into Heaven like Christians. God’s laws are so that we can live a happy and pure life worshipping Him.”
So killing apostates and adulterers leads to a happy and pure life? Do you feel happy and pure when you do these things?
“And I’ll keep this argument simple. Are there laws in the OT and did Jesus(as) believe in and live by them? Yes or no answer, please.”
Argument? That is not an argument, that is a question. Make an argument and we can go from there.
LikeLike
@ Joel
You “know your religion well” but don’t know killing apostates and adulterers is in the OT?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+13&version=NKJV
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
Now before you go “that was the OT and we have the blood of Jesus now” the point is at some point God still approved of said laws (which are actually harsher than ours) and because you believe Jesus is god and fulfilled said law he too approved of it.
Next, this shows you don’t know anything about Bukhari we have multiple first-hand sources and Bukhari more or less gathered them together. I planned on writing a whole article dedicated to this topic in the future. I’m currently in school to become a “priest” in Islam. Even though hadith isn’t my specialty I still have to do multiple courses on this subject. Hadith collections existed long before Bukhari and we still use them. Bukhari is just easier to reference and trace a chain instead of 20 smaller books.
Finally, you argued earlier, that God did not send down laws and we can “reason” to find the correct answer. I asked you very simply is there a law system in the OT (which the above links show yes) and did Jesus approve of and follow this law system?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stew, there are actually many Christians who still argue that the OT laws are still in effect. There was a guy on BloggingTheology named “madmanna” (whom I call madman) who argued that homosexuals should be executed because that is the law. I published a post on that a few months back: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/christian-apologist-admits-that-biblical-laws-are-still-in-effect/
Some Christians, like Ted Shoebat, also call for the burning of witches because that is also in the OT.
LikeLike
Also, as I have pointed out multiple times to both Cerbie and Coco, as well as other Christians, the book of Ezekiel is very clear that the laws of the Tanakh are for all times. After the battle of Gog and Magog, and the rebuilding of the temple, the laws are to be followed to the letter. God even says that Gentiles would be forbidden from entering the temple, as was the law, but which had been neglected by the Israelites.
I have never gotten a substantive response from any of these losers on this issue. They always ignore it. I suspect the reason is that they have no clue on how to resolve this contradiction between their so-called “New Testament” and the Book of Ezekiel. InshaAllah, I will write an article in the future about this.
LikeLike
“I know my religion quite well, thank you very much”
how many times did i tell you to go post on barry jones blog and take him on about your religion, but the chicken crosstian in u became afraid?
remember when you were defending the ot massacre on blogging theology and then jones posted a comment and then you went silent lol ?
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/apologist-clay-jones-fails-to-morally.html
LikeLike
Coco, we all know from experience that you are just another liar for Jesus. By the way, I know you’re the famous Coco from BloggingTheology by the way you’ve been avoiding responding to my posts. You’ve been doing that since BT! What’ the matter Coco? You got tired of being embarrassed? What’s the deal with menstruation? 😉
Face it Coco. You are a secularized Christian. You make things up about your religion so that you can line it up with secular values as much as possible. But people will not fall for this lie. Your willful misquoting of your own scriptures just shows how pathetic and desperate you are to avoid admitting the embarrassing truth.
As for your idiocy regarding Bukhari, brother Stew has refuted your pseudo-scholarly nonsense. The hadiths Bukhari compiled had been transmitted for centuries. Just because he wrote them down does not mean they were not around for a long time. In fact, many of the hadiths mentioned in his compilation are also mentioned in an earlier compilation called the Sahifa of Hammam Ibn Munabbih.
Now, if you want actual examples of late works that are attributed to an earlier historical figure, you need not look further than your so-called “New Testament”. There are no early manuscripts, but we know that there were competing “gospels” and theologies regarding who Jesus (pbuh) was and what he taught. This is History 101. Now be a good little Coco and start dancing like you usually do. 🙂
LikeLike
“Seriously? I’ll try to make this as simple as possible. Here goes…..Jesus says that “all the prophets and the law” hangs the to commandments to love god with all your being and to love others as you love yourself. What is it about “ALL the prophets and law” that is hard to understand? I’m not twisting the text, you are being obtuse.”
there goes the pagan parrot again.
in jesus’ DEFINITION which is a NEW definition (it has to be SINCE jesus DROPS the PENALTIES and ot ritualism’s in his definition of LOVING god) where does it ALLOW a BEATEN up crosstian woman to DIVORCE her husband?
“I’ll spell it out bro…..if ALL the law hangs on these two commandments, then any laws are subject to, and contextualized by them. ”
QUOTE :
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”
what about an ABUSIVE NEIGHBOUR?
“Since Jesus is speaking about a LAW concerning divorce, this must mean that the two most important commandments – that ALL the laws hang on – must be understood through them.”
WHAT ABOUT AN ABUSIVE NEIGHBOUR? loving god is ONE THING. god isn’t your wife.
loving your Neighbour is completely DIFFERENT thing since he is not at the level of god.
loving god is one thing
a husband who beats his wife can STILL love god, what is your point?
”
Furthermore, Mat 19:4-11 shows how humans cannot possibly meet the standards of behaviour and conduct that is necessary to be in atonement with Yahweh. This destroys islam which is entirely legalistic and based in human traditions that are not revealed in the quran. No amount of bowing down, stepping into the toilet left foot first, or ritual washing can purify you enough to attain god’s grace. How absurd is that?”
this guy is a retard LOL , then how can you LOVE god then ? how can you meet standard in loving your wife , worshipping god, attending church rituals, bowing before wooden cross?
jesus is telling you IMPOSSIBLE to keep commands.
”
Jesus, on the other hand, teaches us the simple practice of loving others as the basis for all our actions, practices and laws. Thus, we are called to think and reason, and not blindly follow religious “experts”.”
do you love your enemies and the neighbours who abuse you ?
LikeLike
“I’ll spell it out bro…..if ALL the law hangs on these two commandments, then any laws are subject to, and contextualized by them. ”
okay, lets apply it on :
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
////////////////////
any woman who is being persecuted in her marriage, loves her husband and prays for him . the “those” could be your own family . LOL
LikeLike
@ Quranandbibleblog and Tony
Wallahi this is what I feel like I’m talking to with this “bride, daughter in law and mother in law” shirk Shaytan has done:
LikeLike
What!! You’re listening to music you bad little muhammadan.
Bwhahahahaha
LikeLike
You’re gunna need to do a few extra good deeds to make up for that bad sin you just committed. But Islam isn’t legalistic…
LikeLike
@ Paulus
First off in this hypothetical scenario I could repent and do my best not to do it again. However, you do know that concept you just described exist in the OT right?
LikeLike
It’s not hypothetical. You sinned. What you gunna do?
LikeLike
Self attained righteousness? Yes, Jesus demonstrates the absurdity of such a notion.
Just let me know how you’re gunna cancel out your heinous sin ok?
LikeLike
“You’re gunna need to do a few extra good deeds to make up for that bad sin you just committed”
well a crosstian does not need to do a good deed, he just need to hide under jesus’ skirt or wash himself in blood every time he sin.a crosstian is a ritualistic pagan who thinks ritualism (pagan blood sacrifice) every time he breaks his gods commands. your system allows one to get away with crime.
animal offerings and human sacrifices purpose is to allow one to get away with crimes.
when a crosstian woman is abused in relationship, what menstrual rags will you give your pagan lord? i forgot, your religion says you are filthy stained human who is “born in sin ” so WHAT “love” can you give your lord or your ABUSED wife whose been turning the other cheek ?
for this reason i am telling you, “what god made him heaven” OVERRIDEs any thing a crosstian can give his god, ERGO an abused crosstian woman CANNOT DIVORCE.
LikeLike
“Self attained righteousness? Yes, Jesus demonstrates the absurdity of such a notion.”
there is no such concept in islam as “self attained righteousness”
there is a concept like the FOLLOWING :
“For everything is from You and from Your hand we have given to You” (1Chronicles 29:14).
what the jews writes below is exactly what muslims believe :
Judaism recognizes that God can owe man nothing. The fact that God allows us to serve Him and to follow His commandments is the greatest privilege that God granted to His creations. The fact that God counts our deeds for righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:25) is the ultimate expression of God’s benevolence and kindness towards His people. Elihu and David are encouraging us to trust in the loving-kindness of God – because outside of God’s kindness – nothing exists.
but then he makes an interesting point about crosstianity :
Paul does not encourage his audience to throw their trust upon the all-encompassing kindness of God. Paul encourages his listeners to rely on the righteousness that was manifest in a body of flesh and blood – the alleged righteousness of Jesus (Romans 5:19). Paul attempts to convince his audience that good deeds preformed by a physical body that was created by God, that was constantly sustained by God and that operated in an arena provided by God, could somehow purchase God’s favor.
LikeLike
I love the cross. I think you need to find a new insult. How about “non muhammadan”
LikeLike
Rabbinical Judaism. Of course. What else will they do with no priesthood or temple. They can’t obey Torah, so they created a new religion. It and Islam are both works based false religions.
LikeLike
of course you love the cross, coz your like being under jesus’ SKIRT and washing yourself in FILTHY blood.
but jesus was DEFINITELY legalistic, he told his followers to obey the RITUALS and laws in the torah
if you “fulfil” the command “DO NOT murder” by not MURDERING, then you must also fulfil the ritualistic laws given to you by your rabbis
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
your gods are the pharisees and the pharisees TEach you the law of moses.
LikeLike
“Rabbinical Judaism. Of course. What else will they do with no priesthood or temple. They can’t obey Torah, so they created a new religion. It and Islam are both works based false religions.”
crosstianity couldn’t obey the torah so it created jesus’ dirty human sacrificial ritual. you guys REPLACED all of leviticus 20 (gods PENALTY book) with human sacrificial ritual. is obeying torah dependant on priest hood and temple LOL? thats not what the jews say, daniel and the prophets were without temple for MOST of their lives . when they werre in EXILE they were without this stuff.
LikeLike
” It and Islam are both works based false religions.”
quote :
. Tzadik/tzedek appear a few hundred times in Tanakh and it always means someone who DOES the RIGHT THING.
Isaiah 58:2-
Yet they seek Me daily, and delight to know My ways; as a nation that DID TZEDAKAH, and forsook not the ordinance of their God, they ask of Me righteous judgements, they delight to draw near unto God.
Psalms 106:3-
Happy are they that keep justice, that DO TZEDAKAH at all times
works /killing
Psalms 106:30-31-
Then stood up Phinehas, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.
And that was counted unto him for TZEDAKAH, unto all generations for ever.
Genesis 18:19-
For I have known him [Abraham], to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO TZEDAKAH AND JUSTICE; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.
A TZADIK IS SOMEONE WHO D-O-E-S TZEDAKAH (JUSTICE-LOVE) and who ACTS ACCORDING TO HASHEM’S LAWS – THAT’S WHY THE WORD TZADIK SOUNDS LIKE THE WORD TZEDAKAH.
///////////
sorry, but to “love your god” implies to do all the RITUALISTIC laws your rabbis gave you. i know it hearts a crosstian like u who wants to hide under jesus’ SKIRT, but it is what it is. yhwhs religion is WORK based religion.
LikeLike
notice why divorcing would be sinful even if woman is abused ? Because god himself marries the people. ….what god has joined, so the loving commandments cannot be greater than what god himself has done since humans cant even love each other. A commandment a human does cannot be greater than what god joined LOL you crosstians got exposed again LOL
How many crosstians loved their wives like they did ten years ago ?
LikeLike
@ Paulus
You do know there are penalties where you pay for things when you sin etc in the OT right? You’re literally making fun of a concept that is within your religious text…
LikeLike
You’re not committing a fallacy here, are you? Wink wink
Sorry to disappoint, but God’s covenants have always been grace based. Not the legalistic works based system found in Islam.
Now, please answer. What good deed will you do to make up for posting and watching things that are haram?
LikeLike
nice bright sunny day here in the uk, today is sunday. the day when paulus will go to church and do the ritual with wine and biscuits LOL
so he will imagine hiding under skirt and try to “cover” all the FILTH which comes from his heart: adultery, fornication, self righteousness, hate , anger, and remember how a body was SHED for all his crimes.
and they tell us we are ritualistic ? LOL
SOME GOOD ADVICE :
Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.a
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
that bloody cross must be destroyed , it has caused nothing but hate and destruction .
LikeLike
Destroyed? Like your muhammad worshipping brethren in Indo today?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-13/indonesia-explosions-outside-churches-in-surabaya/9756260
LikeLike
did muhammad tell people to worship God?
LikeLike
why is it that your people are filthy criminals? why are you christian europeans like this? why ? do you not feel the pain of others?
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ Paulus
Dude, it’s within the Old Testament itself, not Rabbinical Judaism. It still requires sincere repentance but you still do something for atonement as well. Next, this isn’t fallacious because your saying a belief in my religion is wrong but it exists in the religion you claim to believe in. A Tu quoque occurs when determining something is wrong. For example, you kill too! Okay were both killers.
With this, we both believe there is something one does for certain sins other than repentance. There is no cancellation that were both wrong. It’s one side is ignorant of a concept that is taught in both religions.
Now if you said “I don’t believe in the Bible or I cherry pick pieces I like from it” that’s different. But you’re saying the entire thing came from God. The faith over works (which is what neither Islam or Judaism believe btw) comes strictly from Paul’s writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nonsense.
“Works” have always been a response to grace. This is seen in the Adamic, Noahic, and abrahamic covenants. It’s especially poignant in the mosaic covenant. And consumated in the new covenant.
Rabbinical Judaism is works based. My old professor was a rabbinical Jew who has left the works based new religion created because they couldn’t keep Torah.
Islam is works based. Muhammad was ignorant of previous covenants and scripture.
So, no, the OT is nothing like Islam. You’ve adopted rabbinical Judaism and applying it back into Torah.
LikeLike
noah,adam and abraham didnt need a pagan human sacrifice .
yhwh said that noahs rigbteousness saved noah.
LikeLike
hey paulis,
why do even noahides disagree with u? The author isnt even a jew .
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
it makes sense that a woman who is beaten and abused by her husband should simply turn the other cheek and continue to suffer, that is how she proves her obedience loyalty to her pagan man god.
LikeLike
Bro, this is GOLD!! It shows that the bumbling attempts of Cerbie and Coco are ridiculous lies which were never the views of the church.
However, in the future, please refrain from posting pictures from books. I am pretty sure that is a copyright violation. You can paraphrase or quote the relevant lines and then cite the source.
LikeLike
yeah it is bro, better to remove them and file them.
LikeLike
Those literally say nothing about abuse in marriage. My goodness muhammadans are desperate. Is this what they teach you guys at “preachers school for Islam? Haha.
So, churches have never said a wife should remove herself from an abusive husband
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse
Refuted.
If you take the time to read this you will notice the misuse of muhammadan “turn the other cheek” being easily demolished aswell.
Just face it. You muhammadans are desperate. All these lies and red herrings simply to deflect from muhammad marrying his daughter in law.
LikeLike
i can destroy you on this because i have more information that will completely silence you ,but because of copy rite rules i cannot proceed further. Bad jesus is very informative book by the way
the truth is that a woman who is being beaten up by her husband could be righteously and religiously disciplined. What you see as abuse, a crosstian would see as love ,like u see baby killing in ot as loving yhwh and his commands. you got destroyed on turn the other cheek,see how i juxtapose jebus with exodus(browse up),jebus really wanted you man worshippers to suffer.
the truth is crosstians dont like to suffer ,they just wear gold crosses and pretend to be persecuted. Your god wanted you do ACTUALLY SUFFER to show your loyalty,not pay lip service and MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO divorce rules.
if you RELAX the rules in “new covenant” what else do you spin? When u have adultery in your heart ,do you pluck you eye out and divorce or do you make exceptions for that too?
what EXCEPTIONS DO you crosstians add to the teachings delivered on the mountain?
LikeLike
Alright so if I show you a verse in the Bible where you have to repent and then do an act as part of repentance what’s going to happen in our discussion because last time you argued no one could keep the law and then when I quoted a verse from the OT where God says Himself you could do it you went silent? Same with this “daughter in law” argument (first off all they were not blood it was his adopted son but I digress) if I quote a prophet who had a similar relationship in the OT are you going to go silent again?
Next in response to the article, you posted :
1. The author had to bring secular law into the equation. Wife abuse was very common throughout the middle ages in Europe and no one thought this was a sin. Again you’re applying modern secular values into the text. Look at the author quotes various references in the NT that have nothing to do with divorce to attempt to collaborate a defense. And, strangely enough, never quotes Jesus who you claim to believe in. This article actually hurt you because according to the author’s own statement there is a difference of opinion regarding turn the other cheek which is what Tony’s whole point was. At best you can say there are two different schools of thought in Christendom on the issue.
2. The Early Church Fathers above were clear on the issue but your currently rejecting them because they don’t comply with secular values.
3. What I’m understanding is Christianity cannot stand on its own to govern a country. Let’s say hypothetically we all said we want the country to be ruled according to the NT. What steps or laws could change the U.S national debt? How about taxation law? What about family law? The NT which s supposed to be a “guidance” for mankind is silent on these very real issues.
Finally, you have not answered a man neglecting his household.
LikeLike
“The author had to bring secular law into the equation. Wife abuse was very common throughout the middle ages in Europe and no one thought this was a sin. ”
Bro, here is an excerpt from the book “The Puzzle of Sex” by Peter Vardy:
“…the ideal of a mutual loving relationship had little part to play in a theological understanding of marriage. Today, Churches make pronouncements as though they have always considered this to be central, but this in fact far from the case. It was only in 1891 that Anglican Canon Law no longer allowed husbands to ‘moderately correct’ their wives. The idea of a husband having total rights over the woman’s body extended to him being allowed to beat her, and the Church raised no difficulty with this. It was not until 1937 that British law recognized wife-beating as a possible cause of divorce.”
LikeLike
You said “those literally say nothing about abuse i n marriage…” but this clearly means you didnt get it. jelly joeline adapted “love commandment” to make exception for jesus even tbough jesus did not make exception. I quoted from the book that argues love could entail violence and jesus even told crosstians to suffer . a woman wbo is beaten should continue to love her violent husband because jesus says thats how you show love to yhwh by SUFFERing by “tKing up the cross”
A woman who is beaten up should feel that her husband is disipline her and suffer . true love is to SUFFER and jesus encourages this,he himself willingly went to get ABUSED by roman soldiers because its to do with LOVE
LikeLiked by 1 person
The crosstians are suffering an epic beat-down! Bwahahahaha!!
LikeLike
Stew.
I get the feeling you are new to all this. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but your merely repeating what others have said many times before, just as how such objections have also been answered many times before.
You should also know that just because something is recorded in the OT doesn’t mean it is admirable or repeateable. This is the problem with your indocteination in preachers school. You, like many before you, seem unable to read the biblical text without Islamising it’s contents. You disregard the narrative, purpose and overarching covenantal themes and isolate or cherry pick verses. That’s why it’s not convincing.
Now, many things happen in history or were “normal” for a certain period. Doesn’t make them right. Christians rightly recognise that many ills were done by the church in its ethics and theology. So appealing to what happened in the Middle Ages doesn’t really help anyone. The Roman church was in error for almost a century on pretty much everything.
Finally, I don’t answer everything because I don’t read everything. I don’t subscribe to this christophobe’s blog so only respond to comments i happen to read.
LikeLike
Tony.
It’s rather simple. If a man beats his wife he is sinning. A woman is under no obligation to submit to sinfulness.
Many misuse “turning the other cheek”, especially you muhammadans, simply to spread your derelict propaganda.
This ain’t the masjid or preachers school sorry. Try again
LikeLike
Lying for Jesus again? Church teaching stipulated that a woman cannot leave her abusive husband. No use denying it, loser. As always, your watered-down version of Christianity has been exposed. I am guessing you are beginning to plot your latest escape. You will talk about how you bring traffic to the blog, ask for “royalties”, then say that you have given enough traffic and leave for a few days while you search for a job and some meaning to your useless life. Yes? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 points
1. Your criticising a prophet for what another prophet did. God chose this man specifically to deliver his message and you believe you are superior to him? God never stated in the OT this is wrong you are saying in your personal opinion it’s wrong. The marriage is not criticized at any point meaning it’s permissible.
2. The author you appealed to used secular law to present his argument for spousal abuse not the Bible. The jist of the argument was we shouldn’t protect wife abuser and should report to the authorities because the Bible says to submit to authority.
The Church Fathers who I have seen you appeal too numerous times disagree with you. And now you threw them under the bus to make your point.
3. Finally, you know nothing of the OT because you didn’t know God made on certain occasions one can’t just repent they actually have to go out and do an action. The only thing you know of the OT is what Paul claimed of it.
LikeLike
brothers,
i quote :
Dude, it’s within the Old Testament itself, not Rabbinical Judaism. It still requires sincere repentance but you still do something for atonement as well.
Jewish people believe :
“The salvation of God is not governed by our action; rather He saves and heals whomever He chooses to be with.”
This flatly contradicts God’s own teachings, that we are supremely in command of our spiritual destiny through our actions. See Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30: 11-14, 19-20; Ezekiel Chapters 18 and 33. Also Psalms 145:18.
comment :
now with the understanding of TZEdeKAH (scroll up) and this quote, ot clearly paints a picture that one is RESPONSIBLE for his own salvation
LikeLike
my conclusion :
ABUSE can come from neighbours, people on the street, family members. abuse good be disciplinary, violence could be disciplinary.
moses cut the necks of 3 year old children because he loved god with ALL his heart and all his soul . and i am sure moses who is “meek and humble” LOVED the victims too.
love means suffering and violence in christianity. christians dont want to suffer anymore and WEAR gold crosses, have BANK accounts, have social SECURITY…..
they are ashamed of how jesus understood LOL
LikeLike
“It’s rather simple. If a man beats his wife he is sinning. A woman is under no obligation to submit to sinfulness.”
A WOmans job is to PRAY for her PERSECUTORS whether it be her family, her neighbour or someone on the street.
you keep on saying “if a man BEATS his wife he is SINNING”
BUT you FAIL to see that ALL crosstians CANNOT OVERRIDE WHOM yhwh MARRIED in heaven. it was yhwhs DEED to glue the two together , not mans deed. jesus said this.
crosstians are SINNERS , they break the laws of yhwh , so what do you mean by “sinning” ?
ANY crosstian who BEAT his wife will know that he is SINNING greatly (like SHIRK) IF HE divorces his ABUSED wife, because he is BREAKING what yHWH JOINED in heaven .
why cant crosstians see this point ?
it is not what a crosstian does, since whatever a crosstian does is “menstrual rags”
DO YOU love your wife (or your partner since u r secular crosstian ? ) as you did 10 years ago ? if not, then are you sinning in your love ? but your “love” can only be “menstrual rags”
but WHAT yhwh JOINED let no one SEPARATE. jesus said this
why can’t you crosstians SEE THIS ?
LikeLike
Pingback: Genesis 6 and the “Sons of God” – The Quran and Bible Blog
Pingback: Genesis 6 and the “Sons of God” – Blogging Theology