discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[creekster]

But what is the 'good life?'

not THE good life, A good life (which is what Triplet said). There is a difference.

[RobinFinderson]

not THE good life, A good life (which is what Triplet said). There is a difference.

Well what is either one?

[creekster]

Well what is either one?

If you have no idea what living A good life means, even to you, than you should stop posting now in all religion threads.

[RobinFinderson]

If you have no idea what living A good life means, even to you, than you should stop posting now in all religion threads.

What I think is a good life isn't the issue here. I've posed the question to Mormons because it seems like their ground is shifting so much it is difficult to really know if they have any real sense of what a 'good life means.' Walk into any used bookstore in Utah, and take a look at the books on the religion shelf, from 20 years ago. Church culture is remarkably different, and a sense of what a 'good life' means has changed dramatically.

[creekster]

What I think is a good life isn't the issue here. I've posed the question to Mormons because it seems like their ground is shifting so much it is difficult to really know if they have any real sense of what a 'good life means.' Walk into any used bookstore in Utah, and take a look at the books on the religion shelf, from 20 years ago. Church culture is remarkably different, and a sense of what a 'good life' means has changed dramatically.

no that ground has not shifted; what they might consider living the good life has shifted, but what is A good life (as the term was used above) has not shifted, just some fo its manifestations. You think you know what A good life is and yet it surely wouldnt be the same in terms of its manifestations as a good life of an atheist from 1830. But those differences are most lilely superficial.

[wuapinmon]

Lets forget for a second that we are actually viewing a historical controversial issue which requires its own historical context and texture...but.. what,you,with this analogy,are suggesting is that prophet Mohammad had extra marital affair with some women who later ordered their men to be killed,or preyed their men to entertain the idea of earning them? Is that what you say?

Would you mind naming a few?

I'm not saying that he had an affair and then ordered their husbands killed.

However, the marriages to Safiya and to Juwairiyya al Harith have interesting circumstances. Attacking unarmed tribes and then marrying the widows of men you've just slaughtered seems questionable.

Also, does his sex with his slave Mary the Copt sit well with modern believers?

I'm not being sarcastic; honest questions.

[Rosebud]

BTW, I am sure Rosebud will disagree, but I think kids necessarily have less free agency than adults, and causing them to be quiet in church is not an unacceptable form of "coercion." (I've probably just spawned a new direction for this thread.)

I do not disagree... either you didn't read my post thoroughly or you didn't comprehend it.

[Rosebud]

It really IS too bad that this conversation turned into a semantics battle. The only purpose for words, in my mind, is to communicate. It is important to understand how different people define different words... but continual debate beyond that point just gets in the way of productive discussion. I believe I began my post stating that....

I like the word "manipulation," too. That reserves "coercion" for when physical force or deprivation are utilized to control.

[LA Ute]

I do not disagree... either you didn't read my post thoroughly or you didn't comprehend it.

That's fine, your meaning just wasn't clear to me:

I'm even bothered that we customarily pressure kids into being quiet in the hall by telling them that they need to be reverent in order to make God happy.

No big deal, I just thought that was kind of a sweeping statement. I do not see that telling children that God is happy when we show reverence necessarily amounts to our "pressuring" them. If that's not what you are saying, then my bad.

[Rosebud]

That's fine, your meaning just wasn't clear to me:

I'm even bothered that we customarily pressure kids into being quiet in the hall by telling them that they need to be reverent in order to make God happy.

No big deal, I just thought that was kind of a sweeping statement. I do not see that telling children that God is happy when we show reverence necessarily amounts to our "pressuring" them. If that's not what you are saying, then my bad.

I hate to be too repetitive but my understanding of this topic is multifaceted and excessively complex. In my mind that means that any sweeping statements one way or another are most likely false. I can see how you might have misunderstood my post. To understand it you need to read my parenthetical statements and synthesize them into your comprehension of the post as a whole. The issue is not whether or not children should be quiet.... it is the tactics we use to get the behavior we desire. I agree that children need to learn how to behave appropriately in different environments. I believe it is hurtful, though, to bring the possible judgement of God on them to get the behaviors we desire.

In my mind "be quiet in the hall so you don't disturb the other classes," is better than "we need to show God that we can be reverent in his house." I've had callings in primary for almost ten years. Many of the kids feel like God is used against them. They're sick of hearing about how he wants them to behave. Several feel controlled and anxious each time they're told that what they are doing is wrong and that God doesn't like their behavior. Wouldn't it be better to treat them respectfully and give them age-appropriate activities to focus on (easy ways to get good behavior) and then teach them that God is on their side instead of against them? They'll feel better about God and the church if we make him seem like a good guy instead of a bad guy.

[MindfulCoug]

I'm not saying that he had an affair and then ordered their husbands killed.

However, the marriages to Safiya and to Juwairiyya al Harith have interesting circumstances. Attacking unarmed tribes and then marrying the widows of men you've just slaughtered seems questionable.

Also, does his sex with his slave Mary the Copt sit well with modern believers?

I'm not being sarcastic; honest questions.

I am reading these lines scratching my head trying to imagine the scene you just gave birth to.So there was a "tribe" with "naked arsenal" "men were absolutely unarmed" and there came Mohammad and his gang attacking the tribe,slaughtering men and made the women all his and his companion's possession by the end of the day.

I should go IndyCoug on you and ask for the link ,but you would then come up with islam-answering.org which you happen to have a crush on,so i will skip this process and save the time as i am already late to post the reply.

Juwairiyya al Harith was actually her cousin widow before Bane almostallagh war and became a Muslim's slave.She came to prophet Mohammad for providing ransom and become a free woman.This was the time that prophet Mohammad proposed her and then married her.After this marriage Muslims freed all her people and many of them became Muslims later on.

Safiye had also lost her husband before she was taken as slave in kheibar war.Since Arabs would not marry their slaves, prophet Mohammad's respectful proposal to Safiya had a great impact on demolishing slavery at that time.

Does it sound humiliating and appalling to me.Of course it does.But i have zero problem of trying to understand the circumstances which all these events occurred under.Who does not know that women were considered anything but a human being and would be used mostly as commodity to say the least.

If you read about prophet Mohammad's personal life in different sources(Beside answering-Islam.org) you would know that he married a 15 year older widow,who had married twice and had kids,at 25 (career wise? maybe) and until she was alive he married no woman.keep in mind that he was given the title "Mohammad the honest" by the pagan Arabs before becoming prophet (at 40) and would be welcome to marry any girl he wanted to.I am sure Khadije would not go ballistic on him,if he did ,because polygamy was a common practice at that time.Sad i know.

[wuapinmon]

I am reading these lines scratching my head trying to imagine the scene you just gave birth to.So there was a "tribe" with "naked arsenal" "men were absolutely unarmed" and there came Mohammad and his gang attacking the tribe,slaughtering men and made the women all his and his companion's possession by the end of the day.

I should go IndyCoug on you and ask for the link ,but you would then come up with islam-answering.org which you happen to have a crush on,so i will skip this process and save the time as i am already late to post the reply.

Juwairiyya al Harith was actually her cousin widow before Bane almostallagh war and became a Muslim's slave.She came to prophet Mohammad for providing ransom and become a free woman.This was the time that prophet Mohammad proposed her and then married her.After this marriage Muslims freed all her people and many of them became Muslims later on.

Safiye had also lost her husband before she was taken as slave in kheibar war.Since Arabs would not marry their slaves, prophet Mohammad's respectful proposal to Safiya had a great impact on demolishing slavery at that time.

Does it sound humiliating and appalling to me.Of course it does.But i have zero problem of trying to understand the circumstances which all these events occurred under.Who does not know that women were considered anything but a human being and would be used mostly as commodity to say the least.

If you read about prophet Mohammad's personal life in different sources(Beside answering-Islam.org) you would know that he married a 15 year older widow,who had married twice and had kids,at 25 (career wise? maybe) and until she was alive he married no woman.keep in mind that he was given the title "Mohammad the honest" by the pagan Arabs before becoming prophet (at 40) and would be welcome to marry any girl he wanted to.I am sure Khadije would not go ballistic on him,if he did ,because polygamy was a common practice at that time.Sad i know.

I have never visited the web site you mentioned. My information was from books that I own and have read, and my rusty memory. There are multiple competing sources with different criteria about the events that we're both mentioning. I don't have a problem with Muhammad in the same way that I don't have a problem with any historical figure outside the modern era. There is no way to know, inconclusively, that anything did or did not happen as it's been handed down to us by the centuries. Especially in the case of a man who is considered a prophet, the Messenger, one who either ascended to heaven on a donkey or a ladder at Medina or Jerusalem, an experience described at metaphysical (Ibn Ishaq) or actual (Ibn Kathir), it's all guessing and supposition, because all the early sources are praising and borderline sycophantic, while later Western sources are derivative and disparaging (to say the least). You cannot KNOW anything about Muhammad. So, we're left to analyze his "writings," which are a maddeningly contradictory jumble of edicts, social reforms, and commandments (at least that's how they seem translated into English) with some interesting stories thrown-in. I don't feel anything when I read them, I read no theopneustian beauty in them. Other than their existence as formative works in the history of history, and the history of literature, they hold little appeal to me beyond this one verse:

Hast thou not thought on him who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because God had given him the kingdom? When Abraham said, "My Lord is He who maketh alive and cause to die:" He said, "It is I who make alive and cause to die!" Abraham said, "Since God bringeth the sun from the East, do thou, then, bring it from the West." The infidel was confounded; for God guideth not the evil doers:

Or how he demeaned him who passed by a city which had been laid in ruins. "How," said he, "shall God give life to this city, after she hath been dead?" And God caused him to die for an hundred years, and then raised him to life. And God said, "How long hast thou waited?" He said, "I have waited a day or part of a day." He said, "Nay, thou hast waited an hundred years. Look on thy food and thy drink; they are not corrupted; and look on thine ass: we would make thee a sign unto men: And look on the bones of thine ass, how we will raise them, then clothe them with flesh." And when this was shewn to him, he said, "I acknowledge that God hath power to do all things."

Do not assume that my criticism is based on ill will about Islam. I am indifferent to Islam. Some of its practitioners, such as the <redacted> residing at Qom with their iron fists, anger me. But, many people who practice (or don't) other religions have the same effect on me.

[LA Ute]

I hate to be too repetitive but my understanding of this topic is multifaceted and excessively complex.

Maybe, just maybe.

[MindfulCoug]

I have never visited the web site you mentioned.

I have no reason to make stuff up .Here #78 you were asking me to look at the page.Just scroll down and go to the homepage .Its exactly www.answering-islam.org

My information was from books that I own and have read, and my rusty memory. There are multiple competing sources with different criteria about the events that we're both mentioning. I don't have a problem with Muhammad in the same way that I don't have a problem with any historical figure outside the modern era. There is no way to know, inconclusively, that anything did or did not happen as it's been handed down to us by the centuries. Especially in the case of a man who is considered a prophet, the Messenger, one who either ascended to heaven on a donkey or a ladder at Medina or Jerusalem, an experience described at metaphysical (Ibn Ishaq) or actual (Ibn Kathir), it's all guessing and supposition, because all the early sources are praising and borderline sycophantic, while later Western sources are derivative and disparaging (to say the least). You cannot KNOW anything about Muhammad. So, we're left to analyze his "writings," which are a maddeningly contradictory jumble of edicts, social reforms, and commandments (at least that's how they seem translated into English) with some interesting stories thrown-in. I don't feel anything when I read them, I read no theopneustian beauty in them. Other than their existence as formative works in the history of history, and the history of literature, they hold little appeal to me beyond this one verse Do not assume that my criticism is based on ill will about Islam. I am indifferent to Islam. Some of its practitioners, such as the <redacted> residing at Qom with their iron fists, anger me. But, many people who practice (or don't) other religions have the same effect on me.

People can not know about Islam and Quran if they have no desire neither knowledge about that.You seem to fit perfectly well in this group.Otherwise there are thousands of people from all over the world coming to Iran every year and have one thing in their mind:*They want to know*.They would leave comfortable lives in the US and Canada and other places as well,just to nurture their endless desire.

I am NOT claiming we have all the truth or the other religions are false,but how someone who is simply too indifferent to understanding the core of Islam would sit behind a computer and irresponsibly fire names and accusation about prophet Mohammad is beyond me.If you do not know,so please say nothing.

[wuapinmon]

I have no reason to make stuff up .Here #78 you were asking me to look at the page.Just scroll down and go to the homepage .Its exactly www.answering-islam.org

That was a quick link to a website that summarized a piece of what I was talking about. I was wrong...I had visited it four months ago and not since then.