Please don't remove the [OT] tag for an off-topic thread. (That had
mappened here, I've restored it.) Thanks!
At 06:14 PM 12/24/2012, P.J van Noorden wrote:
Jojo Jaro,
After a year I returned to the vortex list and was unpleasantly
surprised to read about the discussion about religion.
It would be better to engage in a discussion how the brain generates
a believe in god, then to discuss which believe is "real" : Islam or
Christianity.
The only conclusion one can make from studying the effect of
electric stimulation of the parietal lobe of the brain during open
brain surgery (to pinpoint the epileptic
focus by patients) is that a religeous believe is caused by
electrochemical excitation of certain parts of the brain. I have
come to the compelling
conclusion that there is no reason to think that there is a god,
because all thoughts about religion are "brain made". So if there
were no human beings on earth there would be no god.
That would be likely to be provocative to Jojo. I merely think of it
as a limited conception. Depends on what "God" means.
If "God" means "Reality," is it being said that if not for human
beings -- and brains -- there would be no Reality?
That could be said, but it confuses the word with the thing it refers to.
Yes, all thoughts about religion, reality, politics, and cats, are
"brain made." They are neural patterns, or patterns of patterns or
patterns of patterns of patterns and those that bite 'em, ad infinitem.
But there is also Reality, not merely the word "Reality," but the
reality of Reality. The brain may or may not like this, but the
design of the brain is for survival, so it will ask survival
questions and seek survival understanding, and that is all the
activity of the brain. Patterns of neurons firing.
I just sat in a seminar with the leader being from Australia, and he
kept talking about what sounded like "patents of neutrons firing." It
was a standing joke.
[...]
For now I wish everybody (religious or not) a happy Christmas.
And a Happy New Year.
(no more original content below)
Peter v Noorden
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jojo Jaro" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Funny thing happened on the way to truth...
Lomax first accuses me of lying because I refuse to cite
sources. He said I did not have sources. At that time, I wanted
people to research this on their own so that they would find their
conclusions conclusive. I expressed a concern that whatever source
I cite would be considered biased.
My friends, that is exactly what happened. Even when I posted a
muslim source, the 2 most venerated and respected muslim works
recognized by muslims everywhere, Lomax still finds it justified to
question it, deny it and spin it away. That is exactly why I
wanted people to research this on their own.
There seems to be a question as to what constitutes child
molestation. Lomax seems to think that if the little girl is
sexually mature - this in his definition means a menstrual cycle; a
sexual act by a 50 year old with this little girl is not child
molestation. My friends, if you are swallowing this argument, you
deserve to be deceived by Lomax. For goodness sake, Everyone knows
a 9 year old is still immature in every way. Yet Lomax thinks that
since she had parental permission, that she enjoyed it, that she
had a menstrual cycle, that this does not constitute an abhorrent
act. My friends, this is the corruption of islam for all to see.
Lomax argues that there is dispute as to her actual age. My
friends, even if A'isha was 5 years older at 14, she would still be
too young. Only islam thinks this is acceptable. This my friends
is the corruption of islam.
Lomax argues that since A'isha has had a menstrual cycle, that she
is physically big enough for a 50 year old man. What a load of
bullcrap. My friends, find me a 9 year old that's physically big
enough. Goodness, 9 year olds are tiny, especially middle eastern
girls. This my friends is the corruption of islam.
Lomax argues that since he found a 5 year old that bore a child,
that all little girls would be like that. This of course is
argument by generalization. I say a 9 year old is too
small. Lomax says its ok. This my friends is the corruption of islam.
My friends, this is how Child Molestation is defined in our legal system:
"Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or
sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the
age of 14. In psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as
pedophilia. It is important, however, to keep in mind that child
molestation and child Sexual Abuse refer to specific, legally
defined actions. They do not necessarily imply that the perpetrator
bears a particular psychological makeup or motive. For example, not
all incidents of child molestation are perpetrated by pedophiles;
sometimes the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions
and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to
children. Thus, not all child molestation is perpetrated by
pedophiles, and not all pedophiles actually commit child molestation.
Regardless of the terminology, it is illegal for an adult to touch
any portion of a child's body with a "lewd and lascivious" intent.
Usually, consent is not a matter of consideration, and is not
available as a defense to a charge of child molestation. Even in
cases where it can be proven that the minor victim was a willing
participant, a sex act or improper touching is still a crime
because children cannot legally consent to anything. Criminal
penalties are severe for those convicted of child molestation."
My friends, in fact, muhammed is guilty of Child
Molestation. Sexual maturity, menstrual cycle, parental
permission, self permission, size, etc do not negate the fact that
an adult performing indecent sexual activities with a child less
than 14 is considered Child Molestation. Lomax would like us to
believe that muhammed committed no child molestation; but in fact
he did, by every aspect of the definition.
Lomax appeals to the custom back in the days of muhammed's tribe
that says such acts are not child molestation. My friends, that is
exactly my point. Lomax appeals to a retrograde and abhorrent
subculture to justify the actions of his holey prophet. My
friends, a wrong act is always wrong irregardless of the time
period. Murder is always wrong since time immemorial. So is
Homosexuality, so is bestiality. And my friends, child molestation
is always wrong. No one who is in his right mind would say
otherwise. These acts are abhorrent and eminently retrograde that
no modern society would find this acceptable. But Lomax finds it
acceptable. My friends, this is the corruption of islam for all to see.
Lomax also lies that Christians do the same
thing. Bullcrap. Where in the Bible does it condone the sexual
intercourse of a minor little girl? Lomax cites some dubious source
supposedly of some group that he calls Christain. Typical. Set up
a strawman to break it down. This is the act of desperate man. LOL...
Jojo
PS, you accuse me of lying for not providing proof that allah is
the mood god of muhammed beduin tribe. Are you prepared to eat
your words and apologize for that? Are you prepared to see proof
that allah was the moon god of muhammed's beduin tribe that is the
same moon god who got promoted to the universal god of islam. One
look at the islamic moon crescent would have tipped people off to
this history, yet Lomax finds the audacity to accuse me of lying.
So, shall I present proof from muslim sources? Of course not,
why waste people's time, eh? LOL .... At least I give you
credit for recognizing that I was about to give you a cargoship
full of whupass. ROTFL.....
But, enough of this. I'm bowing out of this insanity correctling
your lies and spin. Let the readers decide whether they find it
acceptable for muhammed to have fondled a 9 year old little girl,
and yes, barely out of diapers. I'm bowing out at least until
after Christmas. You have a few days to really set up a good spin
of the truth. I hope you make the most out of your time? Quickly,
off to the library to do some real research. LOL....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
At 10:30 PM 12/23/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Lomax accuses me of cherry picking what I read, but he does that
even better than I. Quite honestly, I have never met anyone with
such an innate skill at spinnng the truth. Excellent work Lomax.
The point is, Lomax conveniently ignores that the 2 muslim works
I quoted are some of the most respected and venerated works of any muslim.
That's sort-of true. I did not deny the works. Rather, I simply
pointed out that there exists controversy on the age. And then I
mostly responded assuming the age.
Yet, he finds it convenient to ignore what it says in favor of
his spin. To any sane man, these works are clear. They tell of
a story of a sex perverted child molesting prophet..
If Jojo is sane, give me insanity. Please.
There is nothing in the stories to indicate "sex perversion."
That's a conclusion, not "truth." How would Jojo know? And is a
sexually mature woman, capable of becoming a mother, a "child"?
Do "child molesters" openly marry the child, with the parent's
permission, the knowledge of the whole society?
Lomax criticizes me for using "diapers" to describe A'isha. Of
course, I know there were no diapers.
My point, actually.
I used that term to describe the situation in a more descriptive fashion.
Right. It's called "spin," i.e., what he accuses me of.
Just imagine your daugther just barely out of diapers still
preoccupied with dolls being fondled by a 50 year old fart.
Again, "fart"? And why should I imagine such an image? How is a
*six-year-old" "just out of diapers? Even modern kids, with
delayed toilet training that seems to be common, most are out by two.
SPIN. That's really what the whole set of claims is about.
Just imagine if you would consider that acceptable?
Of course I wouldn't. "Just barely out of diapers," i.e., maybe
three? In this case, it's quite clear, Ayesha wanted to be
married; and the marriage would not have been consummated later if
she'd changed her mind. That's what the Muslim sources show, and
*there are only Muslim sources on this.* So what people like Jojo
do is to spin those sources, to try to create something that is
definitely not in them. A child-molester.
Lomax justifies the holey prophet's actions
I have not justified anything. I've described what we can know
about the situation, and about Jojo's claims.
by saying that it is acceptable because the little girl has
reached menstrual cycle.
Sexually mature, it's called. Puberty. The dividing line between
an immature human female and a mature one.
That, my friends is exactly the point I am trying to make. Islam
is the only religion that would justify and condone and celebrate
this kind of child molestation just because the little girl is
already menstruating.
I cited a Christian source for medieval Christian practice. The
dividing line is puberty. Ages are *arbitrary*, and tribal
societies don't even know ages with any rigor. That's why there is
doubt about Ayesha's age, we don't know that she even knew how old she was.
Neither Judaism, nor Christianity does this. Even Hinduism who
used to have this retrograde practice, renounced it thousands of
years ago. Long long long time before muhammed came to the scene.
I cited plenty of evidence to the contrary. The age of consent
begins with puberty. Modern societies have added additional
conditions. Tribal societies likewise typically required parental
consent. (Muslim tradition is no different on that; indeed, it's
mostly considered that marriage without the consent of a wali
(guardian) isn't lawful. That is totally true, without exception,
for the very young. So what we are talking about is alleged "child
molestation" with the full consent of the father, no opposition
from *anyone*, open, public, the young woman in question openly
talks about it, there is no shame, she is proud of it, and yet
this Jaro-head wants us to think of her as a victim.
He can take his non-Christian hatred elsewhere.
A little girl of nine, is by all accounts still a little immature
little girl whether or not she is menstruating.
According to what source?
She is physcally immature with undeveloped mammary glands to
feed a child of her own.
Nope. Did you see the 5-year-old mother, I posted a link to her
Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
Developed "mammary glands." Yeah, truly "precocious puberty."
Apparently, she raised the child without a problem. She had a
C-section, definitely pelvic size would be an issue. But that's
not necessarily true for a nine-year old.
Though menstruating, she still has underdeveloped reproductive
organs. A little girl impregnated at such a yound age would
surely not be able to bring her child to term. We've seen that
time and time again. She's just not mature enough. She would
have been too small physically for the 50 year old.
Jojo, I was also a midwife. You are just making stuff up. Yeah,
there *might* be a problem, but ... who is "we" who has seen
"this" time and time again. Menstruation is a clear sign that the
reproductive organs are developed. They did a section on Lisa
Medina probably because they *feared* she would have a problem.
She had, "By age five, her figure displayed pelvic widening and
advanced <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_maturation>bone
maturation. When doctors performed the caesarean to deliver her
baby, they found she already had fully mature sexual organs from
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty>precocious puberty.
The real "boner" here is the comment about her being too small
physically for the 50 year old. How would he know that? We don't
know how big she was, in any sense, but she certainly wasn't
complaining. A sexually mature woman has a wider pelvis -- see the
Lina Medina article. Jojo has no clue what he's talking about.
She is also emotionally immature. For creeps sake, in whatever
culture, we know that a little girl still playing with dolls is
emotionally immature. The little girl is not even a teen
yet. It was true then and is still true today. But yet, Lomax
thinks she is mature enough to have sex and start a family.
Depends on the culture she was raised in. She took her dolls with
her at nine. We don't know what that means, as to maturity. My
ex-wife, she's 51, the adoptive mother of my small girls, still
has the stuffie she had when she was little. Immature?
Jojo simply doesn't have a clue about the varieties of human
experience and culture. Medieval Christianity attacked the Prophet
as a "libertine," but they did not raise the issue of his "child
bride," only the number of wives, because they'd have been
accusing him of what was common practice in their own culture.
Very young marriages continued to be recognized in the U.S. There
is no absolute youngest age for a marriage in many states of the
U.S.; rather laws have been passed requiring not only parental
consent, but also judicial consent, below a certain age.
What I know is that presumptions about maturity from age are
artificial boundaries, and can be way off as to individuals.
A 9 year old would also have been mentally immature, not
realizing the implications of her actions. She wouldn't have
understood what it means to be married, have sex or start a family.
She didn't understand that by marrying the Prophet, she was going
to become a leader of her community, lead an army, etc.?
Probably right. But I see people get married all the time, much
older, and they are clueless about what it really means.
This was a very earthy culture. She knew what sex was. And she
waited perhaps three years for it. We don't have details about the
consummation. What we do know is that she was very happy with her
husband, mostly. They had disagreements.
This is the point I am making. Islam's practices are "creepy",
repulsive, loathsome, nauseating, revolting, contemptible and retrograde.
Anything else?
These are the acts of a man they celebrate as a great leader.
First of all, why was this brought here? Was I "celebrating"
Muhammad? Where?
Someone once said, Islam is not a religion, it is a "malady" - a
madness. If you truly understand what I am saying here, you would
understand why he would say something like that.
"Someone once said." Some evidence.
Once again, I challenge anyone to point out any lie I have said here.
Many have been pointed out. Above, Jojo actually admits to saying
something he knew to be false, the "diaper" thing. That's just the easy start!
Whether you like what I've said here or not, I challenge you to
point out any untruths I have said about islam.
Liar, liar, pants on fire: "Diapers."
Actually, maybe he's right. None of this is about "Islam."
"Madness," he says about Islam, but that's not a discriminable
claim. It could not be shown to be either true or false. It's just
"story," i.e., what he called spin above.
If Lomax so desires, I will continue on and provide proof about
allah being the moon god of muhammed's beduin tribe. That after
everyone has finished assimilating the implication of muhammed's
sexual perversions.
I would never request such a waste of people's time.
The very idea of "proof" about something as preposterous as that
is insane. Basically, I've seen the claims, references to the
sources, and what they claim falls far short of "proof," the best
construction that could be put on any of it would be pointing to
some possibility of a similar name. The source cited by one of the
evangelical sites simply doesn't show what they say about the
topic. It's like most of what Jojo writes: it's in his mind.
So, best case: some pre-Islamic Arabs used the name Allah to refer
to a Moon God. Almost all sources claim that Allah was used in
many ways, but always with an implication of some sort of supreme
God. *None of that* would mean that *today,* Muslims are
"worshipping a Moon God."
It's a confusion of name with reality. It's idiotic.
That comic book was rich, though. What a delusional writer!
