[flagged]
Oh dear! That's quite concerning.
It certainly would be a pretty terrible thing if someone capable of exploiting female captives and "distributing booty" acquired a position of power in the USA.
One shudders to even imagine such a situation.
The general position of Christians seems to be that God lying is OK, however lying to them is a sin. But, Christians lie all the time, so, seems like actually the rule is "Lie but pretend it's a sin if anybody else does it" which is consistent with God and their own behaviour and indeed consistent with lying about Mamdani...
Let's please not get started about sexism in major religions. The New Testament is rife with sexism, as even a cursory Google search would have revealed to you. Here's just one example:
Ephesians 5:22–24: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church... Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands".
Unless you are willing to scrutinize other religions as you would Islam, then you are being intellectually lazy at best, a bigot at worst.
B) The section you reference outlines the biblical perspective on the roles within marriage. The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the church. the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles. This section serves as a foundation for discussions on marriage, emphasizing both the responsibilities and the spiritual significance of the marital relationship.
As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
B) "The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act" What is written in any faith's texts is imposed on its followers, whether it was intended to be voluntary or not. We can only speculate how many millions of women were instructed to submit to their husbands as if he was God himself. This indoctrination starts as soon as children are old enough to attend church and continues as long as they go to church. There are obviously progressive leaders in any faith, but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule.
"the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles" The dominant view among Christians in America today is "complementarianism", which sounds a lot like what you're saying. It's designed to appear at first glance as equality, but really means that women are restricted to domestic grunt work while men control all the levers of power: All roles of authority in the church, in business, and of course still telling what their wives and children to do at home.
The fact that you even say "honor and respect *each other's roles" strongly suggests you believe that a woman's role is to be, in essence, subjugated to her husband, limited to giving birth, raising children, and taking care of all the husband's emotional and logistical needs. Correct me if I'm wrong!
"As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally... translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar."
This is a fine perspective to have. But OP was happy to demonize all of Islam based on a few quotes with seemingly no account of their historical or religious context. Virtually any religion can be
You just spent several paragraphs doing the same with far more inflammatory, subjective language.
Including many who don't have this perspective on scripture.
Jesus violently acts out in Matthew 21:12-13
Slavery is encouraged in Exodus 21:2-11
The crusades were done in the name of Christianity, with the consent of the Church.
The Catholic Church has been involved in numerous sexual assault of minors over the past 50 years alone.
We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very segments of their core beliefs.
Edit: First address the wrong in question. And a phobia is an irrational fear. What’s the sentence for apostasy or blasphemy in this faith? It’s death. That’s a very valid, rational fear.
> We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very discriminatory segments of their core texts
and then ignored that most politicians in the US are not Muslim. So again I'm asking you - do you actually believe what you wrote (for all religions), or are you singling out Mamdani and his religion because you're a bigot? I'm having your "honest discussion."
Edit: your original response was just the first sentence, and the edit added that you're scared of Muslims. Not sure that's the flex you think it is.
If you want an "honest discussion" then be honest about your reasons for being scared of Islam and not the other religions which dominate US politics. Pointing out your hypocrisy in singling out Muslims isn't "whataboutism" - it's the honest debate you're looking for.
This is about your personal fears of a candidate's religion and not his actions. Otherwise (if this were actually about your fear of indoctrination and dogma) you'd be spouting this same rhetoric for all politicians who believe in Abrahamic religions. Again, hypocrisy. Or did I miss where you said Christianity should be singled out and denounced by the UN?