Why has criticizing Islam become such a taboo?

Original post by abominablebee

- Continuation from my previous post, which btw, you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

. Just to educate your prejudiced mind, Islam isn’t the only religion that forbids pork; Jewish Kosher dietary laws, Messianic Jews, Ethiopian orthodox & Rastafarian(just to name a few) all forbid consumption of pork.

‘’No matter how you think about it, pigs are rather dirty animals. They’re considered the garbage and waste eliminators of the farm, often eating literally anything they can find. This includes not only bugs, insects and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young’’. 5 top reasons include, Pigs Harbor Common Viruses and Parasites, Swine Flu in Humans, Trichinosis Dangers, Increased Cancer Risk from Bacon and Other Processed Pork, The Pig’s Problematic Digestive System. Obviously it would be silly to assume that these specific reasons are why pork is banned in Islam, but Islam generally forbids what’s bad for humans in general, i.e Adultery, gambling, Alcohol & drugs, and this just follows suit.

Hope that ends the quest for your unanswered questions. If you would like to meet up sometime in Manchester to discuss this over a cup of tea, let me know :smile:

Your misinterpretation of tafsir is laughable, you have shown THE perfect example of misquoting from the Qur'an, and you're not the first person to make that mistake, believe me.

Theres an obvious reasoning as to why slavery is permitted in Islam and why pork is not. Those two are not even comparable considering one is a food product and the other is a human. That being said, he would have known the reasoning behind such should he have read the Ahadeeth regarding slavery. Its not mind-boggling to state the least.

Reply 82

username3867674

Original post by Racoon

They most certainly do not. Show me which of the 10 commandments you are referring to.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, let me explain why using the original commandment prohibiting wishing for a better life:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, ass, or wife"

This is plainly a male god speaking to a male subject about property ownership. It very clearly places women in the same category as livestock, otherwise it would refer to both husband and wife and it certainly would not use the word covet, which refers specifically to the desire to own the belongings of another person.

Let's not forget that at this time, slavery was perfectly acceptable, which gives away how man-made these 'moral' instructions are. The fact the original commandment was amended shows a sheepish (I choose the word pointedly) capitulation to society's own progression, in spite of religious its authorities.

And that's without mentioning the horrible and ridiculous thought-crime element of it....

I hope this helps you understand where my original statement was founded.

Reply 83

abominablebee

6

Original post by QE2

First, an ideology can promote any type of behaviour. Your second sentence is meaningless.

It is interesting that apologists always say that Islam forbids "murder" or "killing innocents". This is just a transparent attempt to avoid the actual issue.
Islamic ideology certainly allows or prescribes the killing of people who our current legal system would consider to be "innocent" of any crime. However, the Islamic concept of "innocent" is somewhat different to ours. Essentially, it means "someone who submits to Islam". This is explained in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 5:32-33, and his definition of "fasad" where he explains that the death penalty applies to those "guilty" of "offences" like disobeying Allah's law, idolatry, disbelief, opposition and contradiction.

Now obviously Islam does not consider these killings to be "murder" but rather entirely justified. However, society has moved on and killing someone for refusing to submit to Islam is now most definitely "murder".

This is basically what happened during the expansion of the Islamic empire. As Muhammad put it (in sahih Bukhari and Muslim) "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they convert or pay the jazzy, when their blood and property will be protected from me". Or as Ibn Kathir said in his tafsir of 9:5 "this way they have no choice but to accept Islam or die".

However, the world has moved on. Also, Muslims today seem to be taught a sanitised, cherry-picked version of Islam which omits much of the intolerance and violence, or at least contextualises it using historical relativism (which contradicts the timeless and universal perfection of the Quran - but that's a different discussion)

Which is why I read the Quran with a tafsir the second time around.

No one is saying that Allah ordered the immediate killing of every disbeliever. The Quran and sunnah are clear that they are to be given the chance to convert or submit. However, once under the control of an Islamic State, the punishment for refusing to submit to Islam is death.

Also, interesting that you consider the "reasonable killing of disbelievers" for their disbelief to be acceptable. What is your criterion for "reasonable killing"? Is it the same as Allah and Muhammad? Or as Ibn Kathir's tafsir puts it... "This way they have no choice but to accept Islam or die".

Let's just highlight that last point again, because it is very revealing of the way these kind of apologetics often turn out...
1. You claim that Islam does not allow murder.
2. You claim that killing disbelievers for their disbelief can be acceptable.

You don't see any problem with these two statements?

You're following the classic route of every Islam hating person, misquoting Surah 9, verse 5. You're obviously very educated, so I find it sad that you would be so naive as to take things out of context.

First, only by taking 9.5 completely out of context it maybe be claimed that it has abrogated verses that command the Muslims to show tolerance to non-Muslims. You completely ignore the fact that the verses BEFORE and AFTER prove something entirely different. The verse immediately before 9.5 commands the Muslims to honor any peace treaty they had with disbelievers. Then verse 9.6 shows that Islam does not consider a peaceful disbeliever an enemy. The Qur’an even commanded the Prophet to give protection to any polytheist who sought his help.

Let’s get the first thing straight, these verses were released during the time of war, and when a peace treaty was in place. Can you imagine how people in the present day and age would react if say, there was a peace treaty between England and Germany, and Germany went and killed a bunch of Englishmen during the time of the treaty? EVEN though the polytheists broke the peace treaty, they were asked to forgive the polytheists in Verse 9.11.

Now comes the interesting part, Verse 9.13 urges the Muslims to fight aggression, reminding them of the background of the conflict with the disbelievers. First, it was the polytheists who broke the treaty they had with the Muslims. Second, like the Meccans who forced the Prophet to immigrate to Medina, the polytheists were trying to expel him from Medina. Third, it was the polytheists who attacked the Muslims first.

You conveniently/unknowingly ignore the fact that this verse targeted certain groups of polytheists AT A CERTAIN TIME, as they apply it to all idolaters. You make an even bigger mistake by claiming that it applies to all non-Muslims, including even the Jews and Christians. Yet the verse talks about the “mushrikīn,” which is the term the Qur’an applies to the polytheists of Arabia, whereas the Qur’an calls the Jews and Christians “Ahl al-Kitāb” or the “People of the Book.”

Finally, there are plenty of verses eg(4:90, 8:72) in the Quran that COMMAND the Muslims to live peacefully with non-Muslims.

The accusation that is usually laid against the Qur’an is that it commands or incites the killing of non-Muslims. This conclusion can be drawn only if two things are combined: 1) reading a few verses our of context; 2) ignoring tens of verses throughout the Qur’an that promote tolerance, co-existence…etc. The kind of unfair reading that the Qur’an is subjected to is truly unique. I would encourage anyone who picks certain verses of the Qur’an out of context and ignores many others to try and apply this methodology to any book, speech by a politician…etc, and see what nonsense they end up with.

Peace :smile:

Reply 84

Original post by abominablebee

- Continuation from my previous post, which btw, you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

I didn't ignore it. You didn't reply to my post, or tag me so how would I know that you wanted me to respond to it.
Looking at it now, I probably skipped it because it was just a solid block of text with no paragraphs. Not good on the eye.

Just to educate your prejudiced mind, Islam isn’t the only religion that forbids pork; Jewish Kosher dietary laws, Messianic Jews, Ethiopian orthodox & Rastafarian(just to name a few) all forbid consumption of pork.

And I will bring that up on threads discussing those religions. This one is about Islam.

‘’No matter how you think about it, pigs are rather dirty animals. They’re considered the garbage and waste eliminators of the farm, often eating literally anything they can find. This includes not only bugs, insects and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young’’.

Pigs only eat fees out of necessity, when there is nothing else (and Islam allows breaking laws out of necessity). Chickens, on the other hand, will eat feces as a matter of course - even free-range, yet chicken is not forbidden. Why is that?

5 top reasons include, Pigs Harbor Common Viruses and Parasites, Swine Flu in Humans, Trichinosis Dangers,

All animals carry potential illnesses. More people get ill or die from eating chicken than from eating pork, but chicken is not forbidden. Why is that?

Increased Cancer Risk from Bacon and Other Processed Pork,

The (very slight) increase in risk isn't due to the pork, it is due to the curing process and applies equally to any cured meat.

The Pig’s Problematic Digestive System.

You'll have to explain this because I have no idea what you are referring to.

Obviously it would be silly to assume that these specific reasons are why pork is banned in Islam,

Oh, so why did you bring them up then? Why is pork forbidden if it is actually less dangerous than chicken?

but Islam generally forbids what’s bad for humans in general, i.e Adultery, gambling, Alcohol & drugs, and this just follows suit.

But we have established that pork is not bad for humans, and that chicken is more dirty and dangerous but is not forbidden. Why is that?

Hope that ends the quest for your unanswered questions.

Erm, no it doesn't, because I asked why eating pork is forbidden but slavery is not.

Your misinterpretation of tafsir is laughable, you have shown THE perfect example of misquoting from the Qur'an, and you're not the first person to make that mistake, believe me.

You seem confused. A tafsir is an interpretation of the Quran. An authentic, accepted, Islamic interpretation. I have not "interpreted" any tafsir. I have just presented it to explain what the Quran means - which is what a tafsir is supposed to do.

And which part of the Quran did I "misquote"? I always copy & paste form an authentic Islamic Quran so I can be sure there are no errors or mistakes.

Looking forward to your reply.

Reply 85

Original post by Outspokencries

Theres an obvious reasoning as to why slavery is permitted in Islam and why pork is not. Those two are not even comparable considering one is a food product and the other is a human. That being said, he would have known the reasoning behind such should he have read the Ahadeeth regarding slavery. Its not mind-boggling to state the least.

I understand why , in Islam, pork is forbidden (because it was forbidden in Judaism and Christianity and Muhammad lifted parts of the Quran from the Torah and Old Testament) and why slavery is permitted (slavery was a common practice in 7th century Arabia and Muhammad saw nothing wrong with it, being a slave owner himself).

What I was asking is why you think that eating pork is considered by Allah to be worse than keeping slaves.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 86

Original post by QE2

I understand why , in Islam, pork is forbidden (because it was forbidden in Judaism and Christianity and Muhammad lifted parts of the Quran from the Torah and Old Testament) and why slavery is permitted (slavery was a common practice in 7th century Arabia and Muhammad saw nothing wrong with it, being a slave owner himself).

What I was asking is why you think that eating pork is considered by Allah to be worse than keeping slaves.

Why do you think? Its not hard to come to a viable conclusion as to why one is permitted and the other is forbidden. A Muslim prays with the mouth they eat with, this is correlated with purity. Comparable to slaves, they are the property of someone that has 'purchased' them. Its as simple as that.

Reply 87

Original post by abominablebee

First of all, let’s address your misinterpretation of surah 5:32. The verse translates to “(if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.)” So I’m not sure what you were trying to achieve quoting an ayah in the Quran that completely goes against killing an innocent soul.

This argument is so poor and has been refuted so often I am actually embarrassed when apologists keep using it.

First, you have to define "innocent". In the context of this verse, it is clearly someone who has not committed the crimes of 1) killing a protected person or 2) fasad.
We will leave the issue of killing and concentrate on fasad.
What is the definition of "fasad" (or "mischief" )? Ibn Kathir describes it as "disbelief and acts of disobedience" and "disobeying Allah". So we can see that, according to possibly the most widely used and authoritative tafsir of all, the statement in 5:32 does not apply to someone guilty of disbelief or disobeying Allah.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436

Ibn Kathir then goes further in his explanation of 5:33 and confirms that the punishments specified (including execution and crucifixion) apply to those guilty of "opposition, contradiction and disbelief" and are "general in application".
http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/5.32

Next, “why is eating pork forbidden but keeping slaves is permitted?” Your question really fails to take off, essentially because your latter half is not true in this day and age.

Ah, the old "historical relativism" argument.
So you accept that the Quran doesn't really apply to the modern world but is rather a document of historical record, and some the rules that seem unacceptable today can be ignored if men have decided on a better system.
Interesting, but not what I expected from a practicing Muslim!

A simple google search on whether Slavery is permitted in Islam should be enough to find that out for yourself(you can even use the bloody mainstream BBC’s answer! http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml ),

Well, you clearly did't read the article because it entirely supports my argument! *smh*
"The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries)." (Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1960! )

"Although Islam is much credited for moderating the age-old institution of slavery, ... it has never preached the abolition of slavery as a doctrine."

"While Islamic law does allow slavery under certain conditions, it's almost inconceivable that those conditions could ever occur in today's world"

but since you can’t be bothered/too busy , I’ll go ahead and explain why you’re wrong  To begin with, you have to understand the historical context of the time that Islam was born.
Slavery was too fundamental to the structure of Arabian society in the 7th century to be abolished easily. Doing so would have estranged many of the tribes that Muhammad sought to bring together, and severely disrupted the working of society. Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system. “the Qur'an clearly presents universal freedom and human dignity as its ideal society. Its recommendation that slaves be freed is on the same plane as its recommendation that the poor be clothed and the hungry be fed.”When the ENTIRE WORLD was following the practice of slavery, how have you managed to single out Islam? On top of that, Islamic law, gave slaves certain rights, These rights includes (but not limited to): -Slaves must not be mistreated or overworked, but should be treated well-Slaves must be properly maintained-Slaves may take legal action for a breach of these rules, and may be freed as a result-Slaves may own propertyYou must take into consideration that this was during the time when slaves across the world had next to no rights and treated horribly, to understand the significance of this. Lastly, as it was not abolished by the prophet himself, the law still applies in ‘theory’, but it is impossible to apply it in this day and age as we are currently not, and not going to meet the war criteria under which slavery may be permitted.

So your defence for why Islam permits slavery - until the end of time! - is because to abolish it straight away would have made things difficult for the slave owners?
So, why didn't Allah say "slavery is fundamentally wrong, but you may continue it for 100 years but it must end by that time" or something similar? And why on earth did he say it's ok to use your female slaves for sex?

Islam was the only religion which actively encouraged and recommended to free slaves

Not really. The freeing of slaves was used as a means of expiating sin - or a punishment in other words. Nowhere does it say that slavery is bad or that it should be abolished.

and had a massive impact in diminishing the slave population of a culture.

Wrong. The "Islamic" slave trade lasted much longer and had many more victims than the Atlantic slave trade. This is even mentioned in the article you linked as a defence of Islamic slavery! lol

So keeping slaves *was permitted during the time of war 1400 years ago, not any longer.

So you believe that the rules and instructions in the Quran are historically relative and only apply to 7th century Arabia.
Why doesn't this apply to pork, given that lean pork from an assured source is acknowledged as a healthy food source?

Next, moving on to the light hearted subject of why Muslims aren’t allowed to eat pork (honestly, shouldn’t you be happy that you have more bacon for yourself ol pal?)This article (https://draxe.com/why-you-should-avoid-pork/) should provide all the reasons which you will (hopefully) be content with why pork is forbidden.

"Dr Axe" (he's not a real doctor) is a quack who sells detox remedies and expensive "naturopathic" treatments. His points all all *******s, which I addressed earlier.

Just to educate your prejudiced mind,

And of course, no comprehensive Islamic apologetics is complete without accusing the critic of ignorance and prejudice (although you forgot "hate" )

Reply 88

Original post by abominablebee

Firstly, we will have to agree to disagree on whether pork is not bad for humans, because we haven't 'established' that it's not bad.

Yes we have. Or at least, it is well established that it is no worse than any other meat. The NHS includes lean pork as a healthy protein.
https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/meat.aspx

You put forward your opinions, I put forward my research and a link to the site and that's that. So inherently, we are not going to get anywhere regarding this, only time and more scientific evidence will tell.

It is not "my opinion" that lean pork is a healthy source of protein, or that more people are ill or die from eating chicken than pork. These are facts.
Your "research" was some demonstrable nonsense from an internet quack!

You'll just have to try and understand that due to Pork being deemed unhealthy and potentially very harmful, it has been forbidden.

But as it is not actually unhealthy and very harmful, why should you "just accept" it?

I assure you I am not confused, I may have phrased my statement incorrectly though. You have misquoted the Quran by applying it out of context. I've replied why I think so in the post above, so I'm looking forward to your response to that :smile:

And I explained (with references) why your argument fails.

Reply 89

Original post by QE2

Yes we have. Or at least, it is well established that it is no worse than any other meat. The NHS includes lean pork as a healthy protein.
https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/meat.aspx

It is not "my opinion" that lean pork is a healthy source of protein, or that more people are ill or die from eating chicken than pork. These are facts.
Your "research" was some demonstrable nonsense from an internet quack!

But as it is not actually unhealthy and very harmful, why should you "just accept" it?

And I explained (with references) why your argument fails.

Pork is not forbidden because it is 'unhealthy'. Thats implying that one does not have kebab because its 'unhealthy' yet individuals are still adamant and they still consume it. Pork is forbidden because of impurity. Simple as.

Reply 90

Original post by abominablebee

Honestly, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now, just to prove that you're 'right'.

Not familiar with the concept of "debate" then?

That's like a football manager saying to another, "Your team is just kicking the ball into our net for the sake of it now, just to prove that you've 'won' ".

You again conveniently missed the point of *WHEN* slavery is permitted, under certain criteria in situation of war.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Quran is limited to 7th century Arabia. It isn't. It's supposed to be perfect, timeless, universal and for all humanity.
The Quran and sunnah permit slavery so Islam permits slavery for all time. It is irrelevant to Islam what laws mortal men come up with.

Any sane person would know normal rules don't apply during the times of war, and if that situation does occur in the world now again, yes, slavery is permitted, and I am not objecting that

So you admit that you believe that slavery is sometimes acceptable.
Just stop and think about that for a moment.
Slavery is universally condemned and prohibited by international law and by all civilised people. However, you are publicly condoning slavery for the simple reason that it is permitted in Islam.
Where's your wonderful morality now?
"When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam"

(Especially when there are many verses in the Quran which recommend you to free slaves, 11:13 for e.g.)

Not sure what verse you meant there, but freeing slaves is prescribed as a means of expiating sin. It is a kind of punishment or penance. If you are ordered to pay a fine for sinning, it doesn't mean that money is forbidden!

It is not ordered for its own sake, and the Quran and sunnah never claim that slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

No. You should understand that the Quran doesn't only contain rules and instructions, but stories as well. So Rules and isntructions which were MEANT for a specific time period, will be meant for that period. Others which are eternal, are eternal. I did not at any point accept that any rules that seem unacceptable, can be ignored. What I was trying to get across to you is that certain rules pre-set conditions DO NOT exist today, so it's pointless debating it as it's not a scenario that exists. Comprehendo?

It's not hard to understand if you have been learning Islam throughout your life, but it might be hard to grasp for someone who is just trying to nit-pick and find faults in something and not understand any sort of context behind certain reasoning.

You are merely arguing that some elements of Islam no longer apply because society has moved on and those Islamic pronouncements are now irrelevant. And I agree, in practice. However, every element of Islam is still valid and applicable in theory.
Islamic practice has changed but Islamic ideology has not.

Perhaps you should go onto the ISOC thread and claim that some elements of the Quran are now obsolete and irrelevant in modern society and see how much support you find?

Reply 91

Original post by Outspokencries

Pork is forbidden because of impurity. Simple as.

What "impurity"?

Reply 92

Original post by QE2

What "impurity"?

You tell me.

Reply 93

Original post by Outspokencries

You tell me.

You said... "Pork is forbidden because of impurity. Simple as."
It is your responsibility to explain what that "impurity" is, not mine.

If you cannot, we can dismiss your claim as nonsense.

^ lol

Original post by abominablebee

As someone else mentioned in the thread, pork is considered impure, not only in Islam, but in Judaism, Hinduism and many other religions as well.

Where is pork considered to be impure in Hinduism?

Reply 96

Racoon

19

Original post by trg01

I'm afraid you're mistaken, let me explain why using the original commandment prohibiting wishing for a better life:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, ass, or wife"

This is plainly a male god speaking to a male subject about property ownership. It very clearly places women in the same category as livestock, otherwise it would refer to both husband and wife and it certainly would not use the word covet, which refers specifically to the desire to own the belongings of another person.

Let's not forget that at this time, slavery was perfectly acceptable, which gives away how man-made these 'moral' instructions are. The fact the original commandment was amended shows a sheepish (I choose the word pointedly) capitulation to society's own progression, in spite of religious its authorities.

And that's without mentioning the horrible and ridiculous thought-crime element of it....

I hope this helps you understand where my original statement was founded.

So funny. Please do a google search on your made up phrase

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, ass, or wife"

The student forum is the only one place it shows up.

Ok here is the correct order....

Deuteronomy 5:21
“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.” King James Version (KJV)

If you interpret this correctly verse, the whole of it relates to adultery and lust and wanting what someone else has. This verse is not lowering the standard of a woman's place in society. It's God saying watchout, marriage is important to me and lust or desire for someone else's wife is wrong, as is wanting anything the neighbours have, such as.....

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

What kind of love is this???? The kind of love Jesus has for his church that he would die for it.

Jesus takes all the laws and flips them. Jesus shows how we are to actively do the opposite. To refrain from coveting and instead to love our neighbor. We are to be wholly committed to our other-half and the marriage covenant.

Ephesians 5:28
In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered (of the same standing)

Just as Jesus goes on to say not only must we not murder but also forgive and love our enemies. Crazy ehhhh!!!!

Reply 97

username3867674

Original post by Racoon

So funny. Please do a google search on your made up phrase

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, ass, or wife"

The student forum is the only one place it shows up.

Ok here is the correct order....

Deuteronomy 5:21
“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.” King James Version (KJV)

If you interpret this correctly verse, the whole of it relates to adultery and lust and wanting what someone else has. This verse is not lowering the standard of a woman's place in society. It's God saying watchout, marriage is important to me and lust or desire for someone else's wife is wrong, as is wanting anything the neighbours have, such as.....

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

What kind of love is this???? The kind of love Jesus has for his church that he would die for it.

Jesus takes all the laws and flips them. Jesus shows how we are to actively do the opposite. To refrain from coveting and instead to love our neighbor. We are to be wholly committed to our other-half and the marriage covenant.

Ephesians 5:28
In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered (of the same standing)

Just as Jesus goes on to say not only must we not murder but also forgive and love our enemies. Crazy ehhhh!!!!

You are half-right, the phrase is made up by a man, but not me.

Reply 98

username3867674

Original post by Racoon

So funny. Please do a google search on your made up phrase

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, ass, or wife"

The student forum is the only one place it shows up.

Ok here is the correct order....

Deuteronomy 5:21
“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.” King James Version (KJV)

If you interpret this correctly verse, the whole of it relates to adultery and lust and wanting what someone else has. This verse is not lowering the standard of a woman's place in society. It's God saying watchout, marriage is important to me and lust or desire for someone else's wife is wrong, as is wanting anything the neighbours have, such as.....

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

What kind of love is this???? The kind of love Jesus has for his church that he would die for it.

Jesus takes all the laws and flips them. Jesus shows how we are to actively do the opposite. To refrain from coveting and instead to love our neighbor. We are to be wholly committed to our other-half and the marriage covenant.

Ephesians 5:28
In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered (of the same standing)

Just as Jesus goes on to say not only must we not murder but also forgive and love our enemies. Crazy ehhhh!!!!

You know, it doesn't just appear in student forums. It also appears in the same KJ version you quote from; Exodus 20:17. Or am I reading the words in the wrong order?

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

So I gave you an abridged version, but the same description applies. A male god instructing a male subject on the prohibition of the desire to improve one's own existence (surely a core driver in the improvement of the species? ie; where would human civilisation be without coveting?), with a list of possible examples of property.

I don't consider that an incorrect interpretation, but that I suspect will be the trench in which our conversation dies.

As for loving thy enemy - that's a stupid idea. If someone wants to kill me, I'm not going to survive by loving them.

Reply 99