• Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    I dont know why you’d be downvoted, people should be reminded of this often.

    The prophet Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was 6 years old. According to the history he waited until she was 9 to start raping her.

    Edit: he was 53 when he started raping his 9 year old wife. Fucking gross.

    • hihi24522@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      27 days ago

      I would assume the downvotes are more for the “religion is a framework to be shitty” part. I’m also going to get downvoted for a similar reason.

      Religion is justification for one’s moral compass / desires.

      You see people who think it’s morally okay to rape kids or take away women’s rights or the rights of trans people or the rights of gay people etc. These people can’t justify morals (or lack thereof) logically so they use religion to give them a false sense of rationality. Hence you think religion is a framework for being shitty.

      However, there are other people who use religion to justify “good” behavior like compassion and acceptance. These people are still reliant on fallacious beliefs, but their actions are not “shitty” so they get offended. Furthermore, others—who know people in this second category—may also think the remark about religion being shitty is not correct and is rude. That’s why it’s getting downvoted.

      Fun sidenote, we can actually formally prove that religion or at least absolute morality doesn’t matter, and that people will just do what they want no matter what:


      Proof. We seek to prove that people do whatever they want regardless of the existence of a god or absolute morality. We have three natural cases:

      Case 1: Assume neither god nor an absolute purpose/morality exists. Then a person will default to their own morals. Hence, if neither exists, people will do whatever they want.

      Case 2: Assume a god or purpose/morality exists that does not align with a person’s current morals. (For example a god that required you to strangle six puppies every year or required human sacrifice, or raping kids, or blowing up hospitals, or working in finance, etc.). Then this person will not follow that god/purpose because they are a bad god/purpose. Hence, a person will do whatever they feel is right regardless even with the existence of a true deity/purpose when that god/purpose does not share their morals.

      Case 3: Assume a true god or purpose does exist and that it aligns with the morality of a person. Then that person will be living that way anyway, so the existence of the god or purpose has no effect on them doing whatever they want.

      In each case a person will do whatever they want regardless of the existence or non existence of a god or a true purpose/morality. Q.E.D.


      I should note that while I did come up with this proof myself several years ago, I learned later that Marcus Aurelius and other philosophers beat me to the punch by several centuries. But hey philosophy is the study of understanding existence, if we both exist in the same existence we can and should be able to discover the same facts about reality.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Edit, phrasing.

      I hate Abrahamic origin religious systems en masse, especially when states use them to justify bullshit. Goes for western countries too.

      Some folks probably think I’m targeting

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        25 days ago

        Abrahamic origin

        It’s not like other systems have a much better track record. Shintoism was responsible for the rape of nanking, the ongoing Rohingya genocide is being done in the name of Buddhism, and take your pick of at least 2/3rds of everything the Roman empire ever did

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          25 days ago

          Sure but that’s not the system being discussed, I figured I’d limit my scope a bit lol.

          I agree with you, and my original comment spoke to that

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        27 days ago

        I hate Abrahamic origin religious systems en masse

        Right there with you in agreement 100%. This iron age mythology superstitious nonsense needs to be eradicated completely, and only studied academically from a sociological perspective for what it really is, myth, as well as all the pain, suffering, death and horror it has caused human beings, and still is causing. Fuck religion.

        • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Bronze Age 😋 #Ackchyually. Root narratives of Judaism and so the Abrahamic tradition from roughly 2000-1200 BCE

          Ignore me.

          • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            Do you have a source for that? I would think the oldest passages of the old testament go back to the 900s at best. That’s why the oldest historical figure the bible has is Pharaoh Shoshank. I’d be surprised to see if anything from before the Bronze Age Collapse made it in (besides being vaguely Semetic).

            • wick@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              Yea I think you’re more right, Judaism didn’t kick off until the early iron age, and changed over time. But also the roots in late bronze age semetic culture are, if not significant, at least relevant depending on the conversation.

              Source: theologians dunking on evangelicals on YouTube, and Wikipedia.

              • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                25 days ago

                That makes sense. I also hear that the laws of the Old Testament take considerable amount of inspiration from the Laws of Hammurabi; which was developed earlier in the Bronze Age.

            • BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              25 days ago

              Right. Keref Hinnom is 600BCE, so a wee bit earlier than the actual reference to ol’ King Shawshank redemption. But there’s oral tradition _probably_ running as early as 1200BCE. - I was talking Abrahamic tradition (as per the dude I was replying to, so not explicitly Christianity… in which case you’re completely correct)

              https://dokumen.pub/the-abrahamic-religions-a-very-short-introduction-very-short-introductions-627-1stnbsped-9780190654368-0190654341-9780190654344.html - Cohen, Charles L., ‘The Jewish matrix (1200 bce–70 ce)’, The Abrahamic Religions: A Very Short Introduction”

              • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                25 days ago

                probably running as early as 1200BCE

                I could agree there was something “related” by 1200BCE at the EARLIEST. After all, Judahites, Edomites, and Qederites do not even show up till 900 BC; a few hundred years after the Amorite civilization begins its downward spiral (where some of their last traces are seen in the mixed ethnic group of Palmyra which has elements of Amorites, Arameans, and Arabs mixed together – even though they are virtually identical cultures).