How come Muslim Women can't marry non-Muslims?

[GJC]

There are even bigger gaps in religion. At least Science is trying to study, question, and search for factual answers.

But Nobody knows for sure. I like Science but I don't get to caught up in it all either when it pertains to this matte.

I've never been one for religion either. Even as a kid, it just never felt "real" to me. Although I did believe in something as far as a personal "source" but wasn't into the "loving" nature of how this source is perceived by some religions. And never could get myself to think "Heaven" and "Hell" really existed.

And as far as Humans go, we really might be either unimportant or very, very, very low in what is deemed "important" in the Universe...if we even want to give a title of importance to anything.

I have lived long enough to see scientists flip flop around opinions on global warming etc down the years.
Not religious at all but certain of the rules within religions do actually make practical sense such as no pork or shell fish within the Jewish religion. Given that Israel is a pretty hot country avoiding those foods in olden days makes practical sense really.
Whilst I don't hold too much stock in religion generally I don't have much time for those who sneer at those who do have faith.
Most religions if you ignore the extremists give comfort to their followers so no harm in that as long as they respect others beliefs

[GJC]

Is that why you hate jews do much?

Think he's done a runner from this thread, he hates to be answered back and finds it safer to be in one of his threads where only his apostles can post.

[Boxin']

Think he's done a runner from this thread, he hates to be answered back and finds it safer to be in one of his threads where only his apostles can post.

lol

green K

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GJC again.

Next time

[Marcov]

Is that why you hate jews do much?

Good question that could be repeated every time these guys bump each others anti-Jewish threads.

[Boxin']

Good question that could be repeated every time these guys bump each others anti-Jewish threads.

Their threads are for jew bashing only, if you don't agree with them they will put you on ignore.

[squealpiggy]

I have lived long enough to see scientists flip flop around opinions on global warming etc down the years. [1]
Not religious at all but certain of the rules within religions do actually make practical sense such as no pork or shell fish within the Jewish religion. Given that Israel is a pretty hot country avoiding those foods in olden days makes practical sense really.[2]
Whilst I don't hold too much stock in religion generally I don't have much time for those who sneer at those who do have faith.
Most religions if you ignore the extremists give comfort to their followers so no harm in that as long as they respect others beliefs [3]

We normally agree quite strongly on this subject but I have to take exception to some of the statements you made above.

[1] In science what you have demeaned is "flip-flopping" is in fact the revision of hypotheses to fit new data. This is entirely reasonable and the only workable way of increasing our knowledge of the world.

In fact I dislike the term "flip flop" in reference to politics as well. A pragmatist who is willing to say "You know what... I was wrong, we should do it this way instead" as opposed to a bonehead stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of contrary evidence in the mistaken belief that dogmatism is the same as leadership.

As for the "flip-flop" on global warming, there really hasn't been any. None whatsoever. The scientific consensus has been that the earth is warming and this hasn't changed in some fifty years. Oh and don't bother mentioning the global cooling in the 70s nonsense. That was an article in Time Magazine that cited a scientific study that reached the exact opposite conclusion that Time were pushing.

[2] Archaeological evidence has shown that the eating of pork was quite commonplace in the same region at the same time as the Israelite nomadic race was gaining prominence. If there were really going to be dreadfully ill effect from eating pork or shellfish we'd expect other societies to exercise similar prohibitions against those parts of the diet.

It seems that the "no shellfish/pork" edicts were meant as a means of distinguishing themselves from other cultures at the time, just like the prohibition on shaving or wearing clothing of mixed fibres.

[3] I'm not sure what to make of this. There is an argument that moderate religious give comfort and justification to extremists simply by existing. In other words if the moderate majority can claim their superstitions to be fact then the extremists can borrow this legitimacy to justify their lunacy.

Personally I take a softer approach. The problem isn't religion, it's people taking religion seriously.

[GJC]

We normally agree quite strongly on this subject but I have to take exception to some of the statements you made above.

[1] In science what you have demeaned is "flip-flopping" is in fact the revision of hypotheses to fit new data. This is entirely reasonable and the only workable way of increasing our knowledge of the world.

I apologise for a poor choice of words but I do note that scientists like economists, get 2 of them in the same room you'll get 2 different opinions. Not a bad thing but highlights the danger of buying in to one theory too heavily.

In fact I dislike the term "flip flop" in reference to politics as well. A pragmatist who is willing to say "You know what... I was wrong, we should do it this way instead" as opposed to a bonehead stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of contrary evidence in the mistaken belief that dogmatism is the same as leadership.

Agreed Mrs Thatcher's greatest strength and weakness, but thats a different discussion!

As for the "flip-flop" on global warming, there really hasn't been any. None whatsoever. The scientific consensus has been that the earth is warming and this hasn't changed in some fifty years. Oh and don't bother mentioning the global cooling in the 70s nonsense. That was an article in Time Magazine that cited a scientific study that reached the exact opposite conclusion that Time were pushing.

Working mainly on 30 y.o. memory but I would say there was a bit more too it than one article to be honest. I will say though that global warming is very much case unproven to date.

[2] Archaeological evidence has shown that the eating of pork was quite commonplace in the same region at the same time as the Israelite nomadic race was gaining prominence. If there were really going to be dreadfully ill effect from eating pork or shellfish we'd expect other societies to exercise similar prohibitions against those parts of the diet.


It seems that the "no shellfish/pork" edicts were meant as a means of distinguishing themselves from other cultures at the time, just like the prohibition on shaving or wearing clothing of mixed fibres.

Muslims don't eat pork either, I have no scientific proof only opinion but it does seem a happy coincidence that foods such as shell fish and pork which
don't fare well being stored in hotter climbs are banned in religions that began in warmer countries. Maybe co-incidence but why pork and not beef if it was merely to make their religion a little different?

[3] I'm not sure what to make of this. There is an argument that moderate religious give comfort and justification to extremists simply by existing. In other words if the moderate majority can claim their superstitions to be fact then the extremists can borrow this legitimacy to justify their lunacy.

Personally I take a softer approach. The problem isn't religion, it's people taking religion seriously.

I'm more on the side of science than religion and agree with your last comment wholeheartedly.
I will say though as much danger there is from extremists hijacking religion you could apply that to most things including science?

[squealpiggy]

I apologise for a poor choice of words but I do note that scientists like economists, get 2 of them in the same room you'll get 2 different opinions. Not a bad thing but highlights the danger of buying in to one theory too heavily.

Typically though those arguments are about the details, not the underlying principles. A physicist at a convention would be a lughing stock if he butted in to a conversation with "Ah that's true if E equals MC squared... but I think that E equals MC cubed!"

Science works because of fierce debate and any current consensus reflects the cutting edge of our collective knowledge. Occasionally theories get turned on their heads but this is extremely rare in established science. It's more like the falsehoods get weeded out in a Darwinian fashion... he he.

Agreed Mrs Thatcher's greatest strength and weakness, but thats a different discussion!

Thatcher played a role that was much required but overstayed her welcome. As is usually the case in parliamentary politics.

Working mainly on 30 y.o. memory but I would say there was a bit more too it than one article to be honest. I will say though that global warming is very much case unproven to date.

There were lots of newspaper articles, all of them referencing Time Magazine. That Time article started the whole thing, and the science did not support it.

Global warming is an undeniable fact by the way. But it's become a political football in a way that, say, plate tectonics has not. Same thing with evolution.

Muslims don't eat pork either, I have no scientific proof only opinion but it does seem a happy coincidence that foods such as shell fish and pork which
don't fare well being stored in hotter climbs are banned in religions that began in warmer countries. Maybe co-incidence but why pork and not beef if it was merely to make their religion a little different?

Hindus have a prohibition on beef and that religion also has roots in warmer climes. Maybe the levitical priests who made up the rules didn't like pork. Which is another reason that they are wrong.

I'm more on the side of science than religion and agree with your last comment wholeheartedly.
I will say though as much danger there is from extremists hijacking religion you could apply that to most things including science?

Not really. When extremists hijack religion they tend to get the scripture right... more right than moderates. When extremists hijack science they get it all wrong. Scientific thinking really doesn't foster extremism, despite the caricature of the mad scientist which is so prevalent. Extremism is, at heart, and absolute inability to admit that you are wrong. If that's how science worked then there wouldn't be science.

[Checheni_Lamara]

This is not a necessarily rule. So muslim women can marry with non-muslim men. The most important rule is to be honest-honorable.

[squealpiggy]

This is not a necessarily rule. So muslim women can marry with non-muslim men. The most important rule is to be honest-honorable.

18 months since anyone posted in this thread and you resurrect it with this?