"I didn't even mention the Qur'an but you have to know the entire context of things in the Qur'an, not the isolated verses you pull out."

fair enough, but come on you have to admit that this is problematic

Quran (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).

Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.

Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]" 

Quran (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it"

Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

etc etc etc

"Regarding equal but not the same, do men have periods? Do men breast feed? Do women have a penis and balls? Are men biologically stronger or women? Is the physiology, anatomy and psychology of men and women the same?"

the law in many western countries disregards all of that, since it is now law that a man at any point can identify as a woman and a woman at anytime can identify as a man

to people on the vanguard of the progressive movement your comments were highly transphobic

This is why you never play the 'which religion is better' game.  All 3 of the Abrahamic religions have passages of violence, hate, subjugation, intolerance, war, contradictions, etc...

Especially with people that have no interest in recognizing it.

ah i see, you think because you've seen me attacking atheists over how illogical many of them are becoming that i must be christian, but i'm not christian

i believe not necessarily in equality but that everyone should be free to do anything they want once they do not infringe on the freedom of others

i would have thought this is why people were running from religions and into atheism but imagine my shock and horror after studying the atheist movement and seeing the same desire for repression of individual liberty but in a different and in some ways more irrational coat of paint

its just funny to me that i'm seeing people attacking the very idea of putting things into categories at all, but they don't realise thatits an automatic thing we do to rationalise our environment

this is a great example of that, you were thinking, well she's not A so she must be B lol

Didn't I tell you to stop making assumptions? I never stated nor assumed that you were a Christian, nor have I seen you attacking atheists.

My post says what it says. Nothing more.

so why did you bring up christianity? it was completely irrelevant

so you just decided on a whim to post that for no reason?

and why does spokentruth believe you made that post in response to me claiming christianity is superior?

I honestly don't know why SpokenTruth does what he does. I am not his PR agent. Ask him.

As for why I brought it up, I felt that it was relevant to discuss how the things you are speaking of are relatively prevalent across religions more common in the West. It was not an attack on you, it was merely an observation.

" I felt that it was relevant to discuss how the things you are speaking of are relatively prevalent across religions more common in the West."

women are silenced and not allowed to be teachers in churches in the West? 

here is a list of female pastored churches

https://jeremiahgibbs.com/directory-women-female-pastored-churches/

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man,   For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

women are forced to cover their heads in western churches? compare that to the hijab

"it was relevant to discuss how the things you are speaking of are relatively prevalent across religions more common in the West."

again i was arguing for why i can understand candace being concerned with the growing influence of islam, am i to understand that you are in support of the growing influence of islam since you seem to be disagreeing with me?

Neat!

thumbsup.gif

I mean none of that really matters to what I was saying, but still neat I guess?

"I can't prove it was her intent"

good we could end the discussion right there

Sure, if you want. Not even sure what we were ever really discussing. I just gave you what I thought you were looking for.

"Nah, they're not integral."

in the bible god created man first and created women by taking a part of that man and god did so only to give man a companion,, without going further i'd say right there that this kind of sets the tone for what we see later on

Yeah and later in the Bible Paul quotes that in Corinthians as reason for women to be below men. I still don't think it's integral. A religion is not its holy book. Hell the Bible didn't even exist in its current form until over a thousand years later. A lot of religious texts did, but the official canon used today wasn't decided until 1546 for Catholics, 1647 for Protestants, and 1672 for Orthodox Christians. So yes, you're right, the text of the holy scriptures does set up the understanding of followers later on, but that understanding changes. And should be encouraged to change.

" Oh don't pretend you don't remember that. It was all over the news."

which i did not imply, to repeat if she can substantiate her statements she should say whatever she wants

That's not how implying works lol, but okay. Sure, Clinton can say whatever she wants if she backs it up.

"As I've said previously, the people aren't the problem"

as i've said values do not exist and do not impact the world outside of when they are hosted by people

And you can change their minds.

"she's making them the problem rather than their values, which is what should actually be attacked."

here's a quick thought experiment, lets say we had a man saying all pigeons should be shot because he had a deep seated fear of pigeons and people attacked him for those beliefs... so people grab him and force him to see a psychologist and this addresses that fear so people don't attack him anymore...

do you see what has happened here? i'll just state that i don't think muslims should be attacked this just an example

I'm not sure what this analogy is supposed to be. It sounds like the shooter is the pigeon hating guy?

"I only brought any of this up because the shooter seems to think that. He DEFINITELY should step away from the internet."

no he should be hung from the neck until dead in my opinion, he killed tens of people

Agreed. I was joking of course. The time for him to step away from the internet was before he committed mass murder.

"You obviously aren't aware how much of a problem it is in Japan."

i think its overblown because people have this idea that men have to serve society and the men there appear to be rebuffing that

but yeah japan is probably fucked

the point i'm making is that your idea that women selecting for men with greater resources is culturally inspired is not in sync with reality, this is partially why the idea of absolute equality between the sexes is a joke as we will continue to see

Oh it definitely happens in other cultures, but it gets justified by different values each time. And each time, to solve the problem, examination of those values needs to happen.

"There are movements within Islam towards respect for women and respect for other religions."

fair enough, that's good

"Lol, I definitely want it to become more democratic. I recognize it's not a direct democracy, but I would love for it to be."

ok lets say it does and the majority of the population decide chrisitianity must be abolished because of its problematic elements... you'd just be ok with that?

people don't really understand what democracy breeds and its just funny to see how the media just keeps beating it into people's heads without those people taking the time to really analyse what is being suggested

I maintain that I want a direct democracy, it just would need to have a constitution that gave the same rights as ours and with similar checks and balances. A simple majority of the population shouldn't be able to decide certain things, like rights. Having constitutionally guaranteed rights that require high hurdles to overcome in order to make constitutional changes to undo ensures that a populace doesn't just act rashly when they're angry at one part of the society and in doing so endanger themselves in the future by setting dangerous precedents.

" Like I said, though, I don't blame Candace."

if you don't think she holds any responsibility how did we get here?

You assumed I was SpokenTruth maybe? Or assumed I shared his precise opinions? Hell, I'm not even sure you're right about his opinions on Candace. You can have a more nuanced opinion beyond "The killer mentioned her name! Burn the witch!" and "We should never ask ourselves anything about how we talk about anything on the internet or how it might influence others to act." Or whatever you'd consider the opposite extreme to be. I doubt you occupy the one I just named either, you are just concerned about the potential consequences to free speech if people were to be penalized for what they said if even a loose connection to another person's violence could be made. Right? At least that's what I think you're trying to say. If that's the case, I understand your concern. As for my part in how we got here, you asked me questions and I answered them to be polite.

candace owens was arguing that essentially she does not want the influence of islam to increase in the west, are you in disagreement with that and think the opposite? that the influence of islam should grow in the west?