What Disqualifies Allah As The Supreme God ?

[apothanein kerdos]

I find it interesting that you've given up trying to prove that Islam is not a violent religion and did not deny that it subjects women. Does this mean you have finally come to agree with me on this point?

ANyway, turning to the Bible which for all intents and purposes is a book full of women's rights is not going to help your cause.

1 Tim 2:8-11

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

The first part of the passage deals with women who were adorning themselves to show their wealth. In the Roman Empire this was customary. Problem is, the church is for the wealthy and the poor. By dressing like one who had money they were only increasing the stigma within that society (much like today) between rich and poor, which ruined fellowship. Thus Paul commanded them to not dress up (essentially look poor) because it helped lower one barrier. Also, this was only commanded to occur within a meeting of believers, or Church as we've come to call it today. Outside of that setting it no longer mattered.

As for learning in silence, I will deal with that in the next passage.

1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Silence does not mean completely quietness. Instead the Greek word used is hesuchia which is often used to describe someone that does not meddle in the affairs of another. It is also used to describe a state of not being unruly, of settling down, much like in Acts 22:2 where Paul calls for the crowd to settle down. Put into the proper context in 1 Timothy we see that Paul is commanding women to settle down in the service and to learn from the pastor, not to interrupt him or try and ursurp his authority. This would have most likely been quite the temptation for some of them as the cult of Diana (which gave women power) was nearby and most likely some of the women would have been converts. Now is it demeaning women by only allowing men to be pastors, to have authority within the church? I would advocate that it's not and to assert otherwise is to hold a false view of creation and Christianity. To understand this, we have to go back to the Creation story (which I know you don't believe, but humour me, I'm attemtping to show you a proper interpretation in light of everything).

At creation God took a rib out of Adam and created Eve. The significance is that this was taken from his side. Not from his foot (so that he may have inheret power over woman) or from his head (that she might rule over him) but instead from his side, to show equality. This is suprising being as how it was written in a culture that catered to men (Israel seems to be the exception at points because it did, after all, have a female leader and has two books and MANY chapters dedicated to the heroics of women). In the perfect state of shalom (absolute peace) men and women were, and still are, equal. Through the fall, however, man was given charge over woman (in a marriage relationship) due to the fact she was the first one to rebel. However Christ came and restored the balance. As Ted pointed out in his post, the entirety shows that men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Whilst man may have authority, he still willingly submits on certain levels out of love and is faithful to her and her alone. The woman does not wait on man hand and foot, this is an anti-biblical concept. Instead the man, if following the Bible, will love the woman and serve her out of this love, helping her in anyway he can. In Christ, men and women are equal once more. Yet we still live in a fallen world, thus not everthing is perfect. This is why in an authority situation within the church men are given the authority. It does not diminish women what so ever. To do so being a Pastor would have to be a "higher calling" within Christianity, and it is no higher than the calling of being a mother, a police officer, a trash collector, a CEO, or anything else. To assert otherwise is to become Gnostic in thought which is the antithesis of Christianity. Men are called to be pastors, but not all men. Does this mean the ones not called are lower than the ones called? Of course not, so if a woman is not called to is, how is she lower? This is a matter of roles, not a matter of position within church society.

As for being saved through childbirth, the word here is sozo which I interpret to mean mental health. Their mental heatlh is saved (many tend to agree with this interpretation) by having children and basically fulfilling the "family life". Before we throw out all of these equal rights and that putting a woman in the home is detrimental to her health, we must remember that psychology would disagree with you. Women who are married and (as it appears to me, following the Biblical model of marriage) happy within that marriage are much generally healthier women. To add to this, women who are unable to concieve or do not have a baby are are more likely to be depressed. In otherwords, Paul is not being anti-woman, he is merely speaking about the facts. Women who are inside healthy relationships and have kids are more likely to be happier than those that are not. Two thousand years later and psychologists agree with him. Are they anti-women too?

1 Cor 14:33b-35,37

As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The word here in Greek is different from the one in 1 Timothy. Here is is sigao, which does mean "remain silent". Most likely what was occuring is the women were asking their husbands questions during the service or asking the person speaking which left little time for the message to be finished. Thus Paul, in an attempt to make things run smoothly, told the married women (not women in general) to ask their husbands when they got home, as to cause less of a disturbance. Single women (i.e. widows, those with uneblieving husbands, virgins, etc) were still allowed to participate in the service though it seems (from various readings in Acts and the Epistles, we see women take a large role in church service). This is not telling all women to be silent, but instead telling married women that if they have a question, ask it when they are at home with their husband or outside of the service, so the service would run with little interuption. What is wrong with that?

As for Ephesians, Ted covered that. The entire context shows equality between men and women.

What was that you where saying about Islam and the subjection of women?

All translations from the Ali translation:

2:223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

What this passage is teaching is that men have a right to have sex with his wife whenever he pleases. Contrast this with the New Testament where Paul states that the husband and wife have equal dominance over each other, that the wife's body belongs to the husbands and that the husbands body belongs to the wife. In matters of sexuality, the husband cannot "do as he pleases" but must take his wife into consideration. Islam, however, preaches a form of marital rape, of the husband doing it whenever even if the wife does not wish to.

4:34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Here we see a few things. One, in Islam, men are believed to have been created higher than women. Yet compare this to the Judeo-Christian belief of equality (remember the rib) and that the "order" was only established after the fall of man, and we can see which religion looks down upon women. Furthermore, here we see the Qu'ran admonishing Muslims to beat their wives if they believe them to be rebellious.

4:129 Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self- restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

We are never to be fair to women, even if we want to. Whilst we are to show understanding and pay attention, we do not need to treat her fairly. Compare this to Christianity where we see that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. This means to be fair, to serve, to love with all that we are to the point we would defend her, die for her, and do anything to keep her.

I could go on, but I won't. You choose to try and attack Christianity but leave open the discussion on Islam. The god of Islam calls for the opression of women, yet you ignore this and do not make an attempt to say "no". Thus you must agree with me on this.

And do I really have to mention the crusades again?

Please do! So far you have yet to respond toa single thing I've posted about the Crusades except "no it's not"...and I do not consider that to be an intellectual reply.

[Inti]

Keep reading in that same book and chapter, Inti......

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Ted no offense that but passage shows no feelings towards the status of women. The ones I quotes clearly show that the man is more important. Why else would they ban a woman from speaking and teaching in church?

[Inti]

Super Jew, have you failed to notice that I am comparing Islam and Christianity. As far as I, and many other atheists are concerned, its virtually the same religion but with different view points. Every mistake one has made the other has as well. The difference is that the West has developed socially and technologically at a far greater rate than the East. And has lead Islam to be, in certain parts of the world, a religion that is out of date.

Do not forget that it was only about 100 years ago that the suffragette movement started and became prevalent in the U.K. which lead to women eventually having equal social status as men.

It

[nebula]

I can appreciate your train of thought, Inti.

But in what you aregue, have you considered the life and times of our even our Western society even 100 years ago?

What I mean is this. I hadn't thought about this perspective, either, until I saw this presented.

In times prior, more women got married at younger ages - and since there was no birth control tended to have more children than they do these days. As such, these women were too busy raising their children to be working and involved in politics and such. Things changed witht the progression of "modernity," and thus the door to change in "women's rights" was newly opened.

Of course, now that many of us are required to fend for ourselves job-wise and are single well through our 30's, these rights ae essential if we are to survive.

Like Ted mentioned above - laing the blame solely on religion is fallible. Culture has more of a say on the matter than anything, really.

[apothanein kerdos]

Super Jew, have you failed to notice that I am comparing Islam and Christianity.

If I failed to notice, then why did I make the comparisons between the two on almost each point I made?

As far as I, and many other atheists are concerned, its virtually the same religion but with different view points.

I thought that is what we were debating. Showing that Islam, at it's most basic teaching (the Quran) teaches hate, the subjection of women, killing, and genocide (though it does teach tolerance towards Christians and Jews so long as they allow for an Islamic government) and then comparing it to the most basic teachings of Christianity (the Bible). I thought that was what the debate was centered upon, looking to the most basic elements, the writings, and going from there. If we do this, then Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive.

Every mistake one has made the other has as well.

I haven't argued against this per sei. What I have argued against is labeling the Crusaders, Witch Hunters, inquisitors, and others Christians based on the point they violated the very definition of what Christianity is. Their actions contradicted what the Bible calls for. The opposite is true of Islam, as we see it's foundation and expansion was based upon invasion and conquest.

Do not forget that it was only about 100 years ago that the suffragette movement started and became prevalent in the U.K. which lead to women eventually having equal social status as men.

What does this have to do with biblical Christianity? The sufferage movement, along with some of the other "radicals" prior to them, were generally lead by Christian men and women who believed men and women were equal based upon the Creation story. These are the same people who abhored slavery to the point they not only wanted it abolished, they wanted African Americans and others to have equal rights. Civil rights movements are almost always begun by those who believe in a Biblical form of Christianity.

It

[Inti]

Western society and biblical Christianity are two different things. Western society, more often than not, has contradicted some of the most basic teachings in the Bible.

And as you pointed out in a different thread our laws are based on the bible.

[apothanein kerdos]

Western society and biblical Christianity are two different things. Western society, more often than not, has contradicted some of the most basic teachings in the Bible.

And as you pointed out in a different thread our laws are based on the bible.

No, I said they are based on religion, I didn't specify the Bible.

What I meant was that many of our laws are based upon religious ideals from a conglamorate of faiths (Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) as well as personal beliefs about what religion should be. Such as certain laws are based upon religious ideals that we attribute to God but cannot be validated within the Bible. Such as the concept of the Bill of Rights. Beautiful concept and I won't argue against it...however it is not Biblically based Thus laws are based upon religious ideals and religions, but not necessarily upon the Bible (as the Bible is not a law book in the sense it is used to govern a nation).

Again, it still stands, that western society and Chrisitanity are two different things.

After everything posted, that is all you have to say? Thus can we now agree that Christianity, at it's purest essence (the Bible) teache peace, love for one another, and equality among genders, and that Islam at its essence (the Quran) teaches war, tolerance only to those that submit, and the subjection of women in a lower caste? Seeing as how you did not respond to those, it would seem that you agree.

Inti, all debate aside, I encourage you to look at Biblical Christianity. Unfortunately you, like too many others, have suffered at the hands of "Christians", those who claim the name but fail to follow through in practicing what Christ preached. I do believe you would get a different image of Christ if you looked at Him through the Biblical sense instead of the culturized Christianity that, by definition, isn't Christianity at all.

[apothanein kerdos]

It was looking at biblical christianity that made me an atheist. The behaviour of christians was just the confermation of my decision.

The reason I stopped discussing the subject about Islam is because it was the weekend and I have a life, a pathetic one, but alas still a life.

Well enjoy your life, unfortunately for me my life seems to revolve around my work...thus when I have no work I have no life

As for Biblical Christianity...the actions of Christians and Biblical Christianity are often mutually exclusive. That is what i mean when I say "look at Biblical Christianity", read the New Testament and see what Christ teaches. Even Ghandi saw this when he said, "You Christians are so unlike your Christ". Too often Christians act in a way that is not Biblical, but it gets confused with Christianity anyway. That is why I draw a difference between Biblical Christianity and Cultural Christianity. You, as have many others, been a victim of Cultural Christianity....which is evil. Biblical Christianity, however, only produces love (though we are still fallible and will still fail), and at its purest essence cannot create a victim.

[apothanein kerdos]

I didn't say those that don't follow the Bible aren't true Christians (with the exception to some of the Crusaders, the atrocities committed are too great to be considered anything remotely close to Christianity). What I said is that even those of us that do follow the Bible often fall short of what we attempt to obtain. The greatest Christian mind of all time, Paul, even spoke of how he falls short by stating he does the thing he doesn't want to do, and the things he wants to do he doesn't do. He goes onto say that he is the cheif of all sinners, only saved by the grace of God. A biblically minded Christian will always seek Christ, but will likewise understand that at times he will fall short. I do consider myself in the group of "failing Christians" as I do not follow the Bible completely. This is not proof against Christ or the faith He has given us, but instead it is proof that man is fallible. The Bible calls for a perfect standard, because God is holy. Being humans, we cannot achieve this, yet He gives us the grace to work through our faults. The reason we always implore for you to look at the Bible and not the actions of Christians is because Christians are fallible people living fallible lives...we fall short to often. The Bible, however, shows you what Christianity is all about. Look at it this way...judging Christianity based upon its followers is like judging a football game based upon watching five year olds play it...you're just not going to get the whole picture. If you want a good idea of how football is to be played then you would look at Manchester United ( ) and not a bunch of lads kicking around the ball. Likewise, with Christianity, you don't want to judge it based upon fallible humans, you want to judge it based upon its writings. I apply the same standard to all religions that have writings, because it is only fair.

Christians, ALL Christians, are fallible mate....we're simply relying on God to get us through everything.

[Arthur Durnan]

Gee whiz, I thot the original query entailed "Allah" as true or false God. Well, of course, the analysis is trenchant: In what particular way and even in anyone's twisted imagination could the pagan moon-god of the Arabian wilderness - who existed in Arab thot long before polygamist-Warlord Muhammad entered the world - be thot to be Abraham, Isaac & Jacob's sovereign Creator-God of the universe?! Islam has NO God Who came down. It offers rather a deluded person who violently subdued Mecca & Medina and "assured" us that the Angel Gabriel CHANGED HIS MIND about who the real Prince of Peace was....first, the Angel thot it was the Lord Jesus Christ, then 600-years later a Warlord out of Yathrib yet!! Give us all a break!

That's like saying "For Sale: Genuine Fake Watches!"

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Edited November 28, 2005 by Ovedya