72 Virgins for Martyrs !!! Here are the facts.

by Amazing 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  avengers

  Decisions , decisions.

  What shall I become? Muslem, or J Dubb?

  Muslem, or J Dubb? Muslem, or J Dubb? Muslem, or J Dubb? Muslem, or J Dubb?

  Ehhh. Get rid of both. Let's party now, not later.
• 

  Abaddon

  Yeru;

  You misquoted. What the church teaches is that ARIFICIAL birthcontrol is intrinsically wrong, HOWEVER there are cases when it's allowed.

  I didn’t misquote; I know the rhythm method and withdrawal are allowed. I was talking about condoms when I quoted the phrase “intrinsically wrong”. Please don't distort what I say, straw men arguments are annoying.

  The rythm method is every single bit as effective as condoms IF used properly.

  There you go, having your own facts again;

  http://www.csupomona.edu/~gdbrum/bio301/contraceptioneffectivenss.html

  Part of being human is mind overcoming instinct. My instinct might tell me to knock the sh*t out of someone, but my mind tells me society should run that way. The same with sex, society is better, and more stable when people are engaged in monogomous relationships.

  Yezu, can I just remind you, you were laying into Islam and Hadith, and I sarcastically pointed out that individual pronouncements by the pope are given great weight and cause problems, as I find your lack of perspective disturbing. Yeah, Islam causes problems, but so does Roman Catholicism, and you seemed incapable of realising the bias inherent in your argument. I have proved this point.

  I care what the WORLD ABORTION PROMOTING ORGANIZATION THINKS? NOT AT ALL. These guys have as their agenda abortion as birthcontrol.

  Utter rubbish. So, the WHO is going to use an invasive and expensive procedure when birth control by barrier or pill is cheaper and less dangerous. If you have any evidence to support the assertion WHO prefers abortion to barrier pill or sterilisation, please produce it.

  Facts are, the world population is fixing to top out fairly soon here.

  ‘World population’ and ‘here’ are syntactically oxymoronic unless you have a frame of reference of more than one planet. What do you mean?

  Ya just completely ignore the fact that if people engaged in monogomous sexual relations and didnt do illegal drugs that the HIV/AIDS wouldn't be a problem.

  Just like if people didn’t drive cars, road accidents wouldn’t be a problem. Try living in the real world, you might actually like it; and don’t say you do – you still ‘thought stop’ so hard you can’t admit to historical facts if they offend your ideological beliefs.

  So, rather than backing the idea of controling behavior, blame the church. KNUCKLEHEAD!

  Because the church, as can be demonstrated scientifically, are trying to bash the square peg of humanity into the round hole of belief without concern for the damage done. Also, I think it is the CHURCH that seeks to control!

  And yes, the original purpose of this thread did kinda get changed into an attack on ALL religion.

  No, I took exception to you seeming to blame Islam for damage done under Hadith, when other religions are just as flawed.

  MrsQ;

  The great problem modern Muslims are dealing with is that many Islamic countries have an extremely high illiteracy rate. Also, you're dealing with culture and tradition. Many Muslims cannot even explain why they believe what they believe. It's just what has been done for centuries.

  This is exactly what I’ve been trying to express in the various threads where the Christians start sounding off about Islam; some here seem to identify Islam as MORE flawed than other religions.

  I say this is rubbish; Islam was the flower of reason and science until eclipsed by Christian Europe during the Renaissance. Before then, if you read Arabic writers travels round
• 

  MrsQ

  This is exactly what I’ve been trying to express in the various threads where the Christians start sounding off about Islam; some here seem to identify Islam as MORE flawed than other religions.

  I find it astounding that people base their interpretation of an entire religion of 1 billion people on their association with a couple people who are in that religion--or even worse, on a couple websites or TV programs.

  2% of Muslims are Chinese, for Cripe's Sake! They have the 10th largest Muslim population of any country in the world. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia, with a population of 182 million. How often do you hear about Indonesian terrorists? Not all Muslims are Arabs, not all Muslims have an agenda and want to destroy America, and there are huge variations in the way Islam is practiced and interpreted. In the same way that Christianity is practiced by South American coal miners with no education, Catholic and Protestant Irish, and even Jehovah's Witnesses. We're talking about a wide range of people here. Not only that, but even within a particular ethnicity or culture, you get various personal interpretations.

  I think many of you think all religions are like the borg. A centralized brain controlling and thinking for everyone. Every person goes to the same meetings and studies the same WTower every weekend. Commands are issued and the mass obeys. Sorry, folks. There is no 'centralized' brain of Islam. Each person is responsible for their own behavoir and actions before God. To blame Islam and Muslims for the actions of a small group of insane terrorists is false and ignorant.

  Islam, the religion, teaches peace and most Muslims are NOT hellraisers and asskickers--so you don't hear from them. They just want to live their lives, worship the way they want to, and not be hassled. I have many, many Muslim friends that work at regular jobs, don't wear beards or scarves, but wear T-shirts and jeans and run their errands and do their yard work every weekend. In fact, the majority of my friends do this. But they are also devout and religious people.

  Peace to you all.

  Q.
• 

  Abaddon

  Yizuman; would you PLEASE have the courtesy to fellow forum users to check your facts.

  Just as many fundamental Christians think Harry Potter is demonised, many conservative/fundamental/anti-abortion web sites carry this 'information'.

  What should be noted is that liberal/secular/scientific sources do not.

  Well, I hear some people cry, that's the liberal bias for you.

  No, that's fear mongering control freaks trying to make other people conform to their beliefs for you. And I don't mean the liberals.

  http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/PreventionSexual/Q2944.qna

  First of all, if the condom is latex, does not break, tear, or slip off, and it is used correctly during the entire sex act, it should be 99.9% effective in preventing HIV transmission and many STDs. In a 1987-91 study of mixed-HIV-status couples, all 123 couples who used condoms every time for four years prevented transmission of HIV. In 122 couples who did not use condoms every time, 12 partners became infected. Another study showed that using condoms every time prevented HIV transmission for all but two of 171 women who had male partners with HIV. However eight out of 10 women whose partners didn't use condoms every time became infected.

  Wow! Those viral particles must be blind! All those conservative fear monger web-sites seem to say that the virii will go through those MASSIVE holes like a pea through a basketball hoop.

  http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html

  This sounds scary, but there are a couple problems with it. First, Roland bases his statement about a 5 micron latex pore size on a study of rubber gloves, not condoms. The U.S. Public Health Service says that condoms are manufactured to higher standards than gloves. Condoms are dipped in the latex twice, gloves only once. If just 4 out of 1,000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1,000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000.

  The second problem with Roland's letter is that it suggests, at least to the casual reader, that condoms offer no protection at all against HIV. That's not so. Roland himself estimates that condoms reduce HIV transmission risk by a factor of three. He cites a 1993 analysis by S. C. Weller suggesting that condoms are 69 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission.

  The government's counterargument to this is that Weller did not distinguish between consistent and inconsistent users of condoms. Government spokesmen cite two European studies of "serodiscordant" heterosexual couples--that is, one partner had HIV, the other didn't. One study found that among couples using condoms consistently, there were zero cases of HIV transmission between the partners. Inconsistent users had a 10 percent infection rate. The other study found an infection rate of 1.1 percent between consistent users, 5.7 percent between nonusers. In other words, conservatively speaking, condoms reduced HIV transmission risk by a factor of 5.

  How could it be? Did the good Dr. Roland use latex gloves for sex acts? Was he too cheap to buy condom for the tests? Or did latex gloves give a figure far more effective in manipulating people's fear?

  Of course there is risk if someone with HIV has sex with someone who does not have HIV, even with condom use.

  But I find it disgusting that people will manipulate facts in order to manipulate people, and disappointing Yeru that you didn't take the time to check out what you posted; don't you realise propoganda when you see it? Didn't it seem funny that the Surgeon General hadn't mentioned this, you know, "Smoking is bad for you, condoms have holes that you can fly Jumbo jets through"?

  Obviously not.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Abaddon,

  Look jerkyboy, if you would actually READ what I wrote, you won't find my "bashing" the Hadith or Islam, that was done by someone else. You just decided to play SCHMEAR THE CATHOLIC out of the blue. I have DEEP respect for folks like Mrs Q who isn't trying to use ISLAM as a Weapon. I have lost some respect for you using your secular club to try to beat down Catholicism. Suggesting that people control their sex drive and not do illegal drugs seems to put you out a bit...but that's what the Church is about...that's how we understand God.
• 

  Abaddon

  yeru;

  You said;

  Hadith has much more weight than you'd like to admit and are more than the mere opinion of some scholar.

  ... which is why I think you were being partial, as Papal decree has "more weight" and is "more than the mere opinion of some scholar".

  Re. sex; different paradigms matey. I see nature contradiciting the Bible. God would not give us laws that ran contrary to our nature. Therefore these laws are man made. Very simple. You're welcome to accept the bits of the Bible that contradict nature. Please realise though that EVERY area where the BIble or church doctrine has contradicted nature has eventually resulted in the church accepting nature as correct.

  Oh, and where in the good book does it talk about drugs? I know that the references to 'spiritism' use a root word 'druggist', but the recepie for the holy oil of the tabernacle contained cannabis... and if you take a blanket condemnation of drugs, you enter de-caf world if you keep your definition of drug scientific.

  I note you provide no proof of your claim regarding the WHO, no retraction of your incorrect assertion regarding the effectiveness of the rhythm method, and don't explain your muddled statement regarding world population.
• 

  crownboy

  Yeru, exactly what part of the bible supports a western style democracy? Rome wasn't Christain, right ?

  So are you saying that all those non- Christain based societies have no laws against stealing, murder etc., and therefore secular Western countries derived it from the only source of such morality, the bible? No? So other societies have derived the same basic rules without looking at the bible? Yes? So they developed them because they are an obvious basis for a regular functioning society and have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity? And they also banned slavery even despite the bibles approval of it?
• 

  avishai

  Muslims have their terrorists. So do catholics. I propose from this day forward we cease defining them by their religions & just call all of them @$$holes. The problem w/ people willing to kill themselves for a cause is it allows justificat6ion of damn near anything in the mind of the "martyr".