No fascism = No religion

[Nosuperstition]

Silence means a lot of of thing it depends on the circumstances. In fact only rarely does it mean consent. Mohammed used that despicable excuse of silence means consent when he raped Aisha.

People say that teenagers become mature only when they reach adulthood and hence any sexual activity forced upon them before they can take their own decisions after becoming adults around the age of 18 amounts to rape and thus the marriage of Muhammad to Aisha is seen as the despicable act of rape.

In the Medieval Times, with parental permission it was legal for boys to marry at 14 and girls at 12.
A betrothal often took place when the prospective bride and groom were as young as 7 years old and in the case of higher nobility many were betrothed as babies. But a marriage was only legal once the marriage had been consummated.

http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia

http://womenofhistory.blogspot.in/2007/08/medieval-marriage-childbirth.html

Well then all those un-Christian persons and institutions of medieval Christendom must be excommunicated for their despicable/deplorable actions.

[manfred]

More tu quoque?
So Mohammed gets his standards from Christians now? His behaviour is justified by that of others?

In general, in the middle ages marriage was often seen as a contract, an alliance, and at times involved TWO very young people. It virtually never involved the marriage of a 6 year old gild to a man easily old enough to be her grandfather, for no other reason than naked lust. Obviously then such things are equally despicable. The contract marriages in the nobility in the middle ages were not unlike the Indian arranged marriages in some ways, and nobody forced sex on little girls. Generally they only moved together when they were much older, old enough to run their own household.

Newsflash: the definition of rape is to have "any sexual activity forced upon them " whatever age you are. Do I need to explain that to you?

You are a disgusting man suggesting that it acceptable to "force sexual activity" onto children, and you belong locked up, far from children and any other human beings.

[Nosuperstition]

More tu quoque?
So Mohammed gets his standards from Christians now? His behaviour is justified by that of others?

In general, in the middle ages marriage was often seen as a contract, an alliance, and at times involved TWO very young people. It virtually never involved the marriage of a 6 year old gild to a man easily old enough to be her grandfather, for no other reason than naked lust. Obviously then such things are equally despicable. The contract marriages in the nobility in the middle ages were not unlike the Indian arranged marriages in some ways, and nobody forced sex on little girls. Generally they only moved together when they were much older, old enough to run their own household.

Newsflash: the definition of rape is to have "any sexual activity forced upon them " whatever age you are. Do I need to explain that to you?

You are a disgusting man suggesting that it acceptable to "force sexual activity" onto children, and you belong locked up, far from children and any other human beings.

I have not suggested child marriages,but have only pointed out the grave inconsistency in your position.And tell me I have often read stories in my childhood about some women in the West getting married to those who have the age of their fathers.Now how could that be legal in this day and age?

[manfred]

You merely have pointed out yet again your total inability to understand the tu quoque fallacy.

It was at no time in history acceptable practice to have sex with children. Sure people did it, specially those who nobody dared to criticise, such as the emperor Tiberius of Rome, and the "prophet" of Islam Mohammed. But is was universally seen then as it is now, a sign of utter corruption.

Will it not get into your head that simply because someone else did that too you cannot conclude it is acceptable?

People marry with big age differences. As long as BOTH are old enough to understand what they are doing I have no problem with that. An 18 year old Russian peasant girl may marry a 94 year old Chinese millionaire. Sure there are some questions, but there is no reason to stop them. Even an old man has a right to do something silly.

I do have a big problem with a 59 year old man having sex with a nine year old girl, and you would have to be an idiot not to see the difference.

I have not suggested child marriages,

You have suggested that forcing sex on children is acceptable:

People say that teenagers become mature only when they reach adulthood and hence any sexual activity forced upon them before they can take their own decisions after becoming adults around the age of 18 amounts to rape

Your whole point was anyone should be able to FORCE themselves onto children.

[Nosuperstition]

Your whole point was anyone should be able to FORCE themselves onto children.

Twisting my words as usual.I only pointed out that those who are considered very much Christian had forced themselves on children in erstwhile eras.With the development of medical science to unimaginable heights post Renaissance and post WW II and with the harnessing of the same by everyone due to welfare state like conditions,child marriage has become a taboo and it is stick with which you can browbeat muslims all the while not giving them the same economic benefits that allow you within the reach of the modern medical systems.

[manfred]

I am twisting nothing.

You said that adults should be allowed to force themselves sexually on children and that such things would not be rape. Loud and clear for anyone to see.

You justified this outrageous claim with a bogus tu quoque argument, which has been dismantled in some detail, in particular you have, in addition to using it as a tu quoque, misrepresented medieval child marriages.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

[Nosuperstition]

I am twisting nothing.

You said that adults should be allowed to force themselves sexually on children and that such things would not be rape. Loud and clear for anyone to see.

You justified this outrageous claim with a bogus tu quoque argument, which has been dismantled in some detail, in particular you have, in addition to using it as a tu quoque, misrepresented medieval child marriages.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

I have only showed you how your esteemed medieval men behaved.I do understand the logic of tu quo que.But it is the very logic used to kill millions of muslims around the world for the 3,000 Americans that got killed on 9/11.So I do not see how that logic could be wrong.Apart from that I have never approved nor will I ever approve of adults marrying children.Story of Arjuna in Mahabharata regarding the proposal of him getting married to Uttara is crystal clear on that.

[manfred]

I have only showed you how your esteemed medieval men behaved

"My esteemed"?

And as usual you have shown nothing. You have MISREPRESENTED how medieval men behaved. What was a fairly common thing up to almost 1600 is this: Parents of nobility (and possibly some others too) arranging a marriage of their children when they are very young. Then, when they are old enough have their own household and look after their own affairs, they move together and THEN the marriage is consumed.

That is a very far cry from and 56 year old man forcing one of his strongest supporters to hand over his 6 year old daughter to him in a "marriage", and then raping her when she was 9.

... kill millions of muslims ...

blah blah blah as usual.

Why did the Afghan government and the Pakistani government not help to capture Osama Bin Laden?

[sum]

Hello Nosuperstition

All muslims are obliged to follow Koran 60:4 and therefore hold enmity and hatred towards all non-muslims. They are the enemy of non-muslims according to the Koran. They attack and the non-muslims respond.

sum

[Nosuperstition]

What was a fairly common thing up to almost 1600 is this: Parents of nobility (and possibly some others too) arranging a marriage of their children when they are very young. Then, when they are old enough have their own household and look after their own affairs, they move together and THEN the marriage is consumed.

It is said that people in tropics achieve the ability to look after their own affairs at an age far less than those in temperate and Tundra climates.Is it true?

Why did the Afghan government and the Pakistani government not help to capture Osama Bin Laden?

saranaagata raksha i.e protection to those that seek refuge claiming persecution.The same reason why Western governments shelter political dissidents of other countries.

[Nosuperstition]

Hello Nosuperstition

All muslims are obliged to follow Koran 60:4 and therefore hold enmity and hatred towards all non-muslims. They are the enemy of non-muslims according to the Koran. They attack and the non-muslims respond.

sum

Whatever,I did not see that personally until I came to know of these things on the internet.May be even many European muslims are culturally more European than muslim.

[manfred]

It is said that people in tropics achieve the ability to look after their own affairs at an age far less than those in temperate and Tundra climates.Is it true?

No. Sunshine makes you more intelligent? LOL

saranaagata raksha i.e protection to those that seek refuge claiming persecution.The same reason why Western governments shelter political dissidents of other countries.

So they saw Osama Bin Laden as a poor oppress, persecuted VICTIM. A "political dissident". Therefore they endorse the rights of Muslims to make "politics" by terror attacks.

We may give refuge to a a political dissident, but not to terrorists.

[Nosuperstition]

It is said that people in tropics achieve the ability to look after their own affairs at an age far less than those in temperate and Tundra climates.Is it true?

No. Sunshine makes you more intelligent? LOL

saranaagata raksha i.e protection to those that seek refuge claiming persecution.The same reason why Western governments shelter political dissidents of other countries.

So they saw Osama Bin Laden as a poor oppress, persecuted VICTIM. A "political dissident". Therefore they endorse the rights of Muslims to make "politics" by terror attacks.

We may give refuge to a a political dissident, but not to terrorists.

Sunshine is definately needed for life to blossom.That is the reason one can see more life in tropics than in the Tundras.So is it not true that in the tropics puberty is attained at an early age.And historically was that not seen as a sign of maturity?

This dysfunction creates vacuum, to which others, like western powers to step in and exploit it to their benefit.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16520&p=218381&hilit=exploit#p218381

There you go,a respected member of this very forum said that Westerners are exploiting muslims.How did they do that?By creating nation states in the post colonial era which are artificial when compared the pan Arabic notion of nationhood.Divide and rule,divide and exploit.Osama was against such exploitation albeit the means he used to express his outrage will definately trigger a tu quo que reaction.

And political dissidents are given shelter by the West not out of genuine concern for human rights but to divide the third world further and then gulp their natural resources.

[Nosuperstition]

People say that teenagers become mature only when they reach adulthood and hence any sexual activity forced upon them before they can take their own decisions after becoming adults around the age of 18 amounts to rape

Your whole point was anyone should be able to FORCE themselves onto children.

My whole point was that sex in an arranged marriage that too an arranged child marriage is seen as an act of rape and that is how marriage of Aisha to Muhammad was seen as a rape.Not that I condone rape.

[manfred]

Osama was against such exploitation albeit the means he used to express his outrage will definately trigger a tu quo que reaction.

Nonbody is explointing any Muslims. In reality Muslims exploiting the West on a massive scale. Bin Laden was a jihad fighter, doing what Islam teaches. That does not make him any kind of political victim or refugee, unless of course you agree with his aims AND methods.

My whole point was that sex in an arranged marriage that too an arranged child marriage is seen as an act of rape and that is how marriage of Aisha to Muhammad was seen as a rape.Not that I condone rape.

A marriage, arranged or otherwise, is not valid if one or both parties cannot give consent, as in the case of a child. If such a marriage is consumed before consent can be given, then it is indeed rape. And silence is NOT consent.

[Nosuperstition]

There was a Roman writer who told many stories about talking animals. We all know animals do not talk as such. So does that mean his stories are just nonsense? Well, if you take your time to read them, you find they are not about animals at all, but about people. Different types of people. The way they interact. Human nature.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=15672&p=209979&hilit=animals+Roman#p209979

http://www.englishdaily626.com/stories.php

Well there is proverbial frog in the well concept even in Sanskrit.Described as 'koopastha mandookam' in Sanskrit and noothilo kappa in Telugu it hints in the same direction.That is the precise reason why fascism is required for religion to thrive.

[Nosuperstition]

http://www.hotstar.com/?gclid=CNnxwteKzMgCFRYMjgodUV0C9Q#!/mahabharat-435/gandhari-curses-krishna-1000012035-e

The above video shows that the entire Yadu dynasty is cursed by Gandhari to go extinct as he,Krishna of the Yadu dynasty made her entire Kuru dynasty to become extinct.

2.Now milkmen in general have been made to believe that Krishna,one of two important incarnations of Hindu god Vishnu was from their caste.So she worships Krishna and in all the possibility she thinks that Allah is another form of Krishna who caters to the needs of another strain of mankind following a different path with a different name.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6704&p=211441&hilit=Krishna#p211441

But still there are people who believe that they descended from Krishna.This shows that atleast one of them lied.

I have also come across different inauspicious timings of Varjyams in a day in different calenders penned down by different Siddhanthis.Shows that these are all hoaxes being perpetrated on the guillible by those who themselves received no crystal clear revelations from higher powers.

[Nosuperstition]

Well Christianity adopted/incorporated the colourful Roman/Germanic pagan festivals of Saturnalia etc as Christmas,Easter etc.The Roman holiday for the Sun-God was adopted as the day of Sabbath instead of the original Saturday Sabbath of the Jews.The Western Christian church even accepted the winter solstice day of pagans as the birthday of Christ even though that was far from the truth.

So what is wrong if muslims also adopt the pagan ritual of cirumambulating the black stone in Mecca?Afterall Muslims too have proved themselves quite accomodative to the Persians in accepting/in retaining their new year day (navroz) as the new year festival.

Nav=nava/navya in Sanskrit=naya in Hindi and Urdu=neo in Greek and Latin=new in English

roz=roz in Persian and Hindi=roju inTelugu meaning day.

There's nothing wrong in Christians adopting Roman customs or Muslims adopting polytheist customs. People can believe what they like. What it does do, though, is show up their religions as false.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16633&p=220070&hilit=Navroz#p220070

[Nosuperstition]

There were many discrepancies in the stories of the Mahabharat shown above,that which were shown in the episodes when I was a kid and that which I have read between VI th and X th standard in the Chandamama children series.Perhaps if the fascists had known about them,they would have tried to bring about uniformity or conformity with one standard version.

[Nosuperstition]

Ex-Prime Minister of India,Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao is said to have mentioned in one of his books about Rukmini,first wife of God Krishna being mentioned as princess of Vidarbha of modern day Maharashtra,while she was also known as princess of Manipur according to the tradition of Manipuris of North-Eastern India.Now when I first read about it in the graduation books of my elder brother,I read it cursorily and the full import of that being a logical inconsistency or contradiction did not dawn upon me.

That happened only after I came to know about those concepts in this forum.So clearly those who were making up these stories and traditions had it in their mind that there are many other logical inconsistencies in their books or traditions and hence did not consider it sinful to twist according to the need of the hour something related to a person as sacred as Krishna.