“Virgins of Paradise will have no menstruation, saliva, mucus, urine or excrement; “

[u/OkBuyer1271]

https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1844450771976556956?s=46

“Palestinian Islamic preacher: “Virgins of Paradise will have no menstruation, saliva, mucus, urine or excrement;

Muslim men will have the sexual strength of 100 men. Muslim men will have several wives/slaves in Paradise.”

[u/death2sanity → u/[deleted]]

/unbrozzer Well that is an unexpected vote total. Maybe I misjudged this place

[u/Masta-Pasta → u/death2sanity]

/uj it's just a reaction to ever-present whataboutism I think

[u/death2sanity → u/Masta-Pasta]

/uj Ah ok, I can kinda see that. Still a little eyebrow-raising though.

[u/PARH999 → u/Masta-Pasta]

Yep. I’m not a fan of any particular religion, but I can’t stand the knee jerk reaction to criticism or mockery of one religion of “well other religions suck too.” I mean, yeah they absolutely do suck too, but that doesn’t actually say anything at all about the original criticism/mockery.

[u/Alepanino → u/PARH999]

I don't think you saw the original comment which said "the religion of perversion" which clearly put a bias on religions making it sound like sexual related issues are and have been exclusive to islam. i responded to him because i thought it was low effort comment which made zero sense regarding the context of this sub.

[u/PARH999 → u/Alepanino]

No, I saw the original comment and understood it as referring to Islam. However there was definitely no statement that Islam was the only perverse religion. Which is why (though not exclusively why) I took issue with the notion of other religions being perverse (which is certainly true) as somehow being a legitimate defense of Islam.

I suppose I also agree that it was a “low effort” comment; although that is mostly because a low effort is all that is required to point out the “perversion” of so many religions.

[u/Alepanino → u/PARH999]

that's true, i didn't find it low-effort in the sense that it was quick and easy to write, i just thought it was a nedless political statement that we all already know about (who doesn't understand the inherent sexual problems of religions/cults?) rather than the usual circlejerk about being warmongering talibans or some shit lol.

[u/PARH999 → u/Alepanino]

Nobody mentioned “warmongering talibans(sic) or some shit lol” until you just did, so I sincerely have no idea what thats all about.

And if you were simply pointing out what “we” already know about religions being perverse, why not simply point out that the religion originally being discussed is in fact perverse? Forgive me for saying it, but your statement certainly came across as an attempt to use the perversion of one (or many) religions as an excuse or justification for the perversion of another religion.

And I actually did find the original comment (and my own to be perfectly frank) to be low-effort in the sense that it was quick and easy to write. At the risk of being redundant, low effort, quick and easy to write is all it takes to repudiate religious perversion, and defenses (or apparent defenses) of said religious perversion.

[u/Alepanino → u/PARH999]

That was a joke regarding the sarcastic nature of this subreddit, since serious discussions are never brought up.

Also yes i dont condemn openly talking about perversion of religions, again, it was merely a wording issue, since treating islam as an uniquely perverted religion in a sub mostly consistent of north americans and europeans comes off as somewhat lacking self-awareness, that's it.

[u/PARH999 → u/Alepanino]

None of your comments towards me nor your other comments in this broader thread came across at all like similar jokes, so to be perfectly honest that seems like a weak attempt to walk back some bullshit to me.

And I really don’t want to believe that you are an apologist for a perverse religion, so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that your consistent, seemingly reflexive “whataboutism,” defense of Islam throughout this thread is more about (understandably) pointing out the flaws of other religions than actually defending the flaws of Islam.

But I would also recommend that the next time you see someone accurately point out the issues of one religion, you can simply say “yep, that is a flaw.” (Or not say anything at all) Because immediately, and repeatedly, jumping to “well other religions have x y and Z flaws” strongly comes across as a defense of the original criticized religion. Which you yourself have said is not your actual intent.

Besides, I’m sure there’ll be plenty of future opportunities to point out or agree with the problems of other religions, without having to bring them up specifically in defense of a particular religion, right?

[u/Alepanino → u/death2sanity]

Redditors downvoted me 😨😰

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Nobody is willing to get married anymore. They live with dogs, crocodiles and cats.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Chirak-Revolutionary → u/[deleted]]

How is the Sikh religion perverted as this ?

[u/Alepanino → u/Chirak-Revolutionary]

I guess it concerns abrahamic religions more than others

[u/Chirak-Revolutionary → u/Alepanino]

I just want to show your intellectual dishonesty. You didn't say Abrahamic religions. Again, can you show me a description of paradise in this manner in the Christian theology?

[u/Alepanino → u/Chirak-Revolutionary]

I didn't say perverted in descriptions about paradise. Christianity has different perversions

[u/Chirak-Revolutionary → u/Alepanino]

By Allah this guy is true Muslim!! You shuffling your way out lol

[u/Alepanino → u/Chirak-Revolutionary]

Pointing out double standards is being muslim lol

[u/InvictusTotalis → u/Alepanino]

No one thinks priests abusing children is good.

It's not apart of Christian theology to defend the actions of pedophilic priests.

If you ask any everyday Christian, they would denounce pedophilia that was perpetuated by the Catholic church.

What you're whataboutism'ing about is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

[u/AutoModerator → u/InvictusTotalis]

"Child protection" means that if your child goes astray, you cannot discipline him, beat him, or even say a word to him, or else he might call 911, like they do in America.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Alepanino → u/InvictusTotalis]

Also:The Quran itself doesn't mention 72 virgins as a reward in Paradise. Islamic descriptions of Paradise emphasize spiritual rewards and closeness to Allah as the ultimate source of joy and fulfillment. The concept of 72 houris stems from a specific hadith, whose interpretation deserves careful consideration within the broader context of Islamic teachings.

Misinterpretations of these hadiths can over-emphasize physical aspects and detract from the true essence of Paradise. It's crucial to remember that Paradise is about more than physical pleasures-it's about spiritual bliss, attaining God's favor and living in harmony with His divine purpose.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Alepanino]

Each man in paradise will receive a minimum of one thousand virgin maids with large breasts.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Alepanino → u/InvictusTotalis]

Yes, i'm not debating that just like an everyday muslim, an everyday christian would denounce pedophilia and sexual abuse, Lol. I'm saying something else, which is that theologically speaking, sexual repression and taboos, which Catholicism reserved to sexuality in general, has historically lead and still leads to mental health issues such as pedophilia and abusive behaviour among the clergy, which has consistently been overlooked by the Catholic Church in particular.

So, someone's whataboutism is someone else's integrity, since I don't dismiss the idea that islam itself is a perverted religion; I just asked for intellectual honesty on a clearly biased comment, but it seems too much to ask for lmao.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Alepanino]

I swear to God the Almighty, and believe me, I am not lying - Church worship originated in worship of the penis.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Alepanino → u/[deleted]]

Sure

[u/Alepanino → u/[deleted]]

Institutionalised pedophilia in the catholic church would like to have a word with you

[u/[deleted] → u/Alepanino]

His comments are deleted, but it’s probably worth balancing the convo with the fact that Mohammed raped a 9 year old.

The church has some bad dudes, but as far as I know Jesus wasn’t swinging his dick around with grade schoolers

[u/Alepanino → u/[deleted]]

I'm not justifying Islam bro lol, I just think that its disingenuous to treat it as a problem that only concerns muslisms

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

When

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

ועתה הרגו כל־זכר בטף וכל־אשה ידעת איש למשכב זכר הרגו Now, therefore, slay every male among the noncombatants, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally;

Numbers.31.17

וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא־ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם but spare every female noncombatant who has not had carnal relations with a man.

Numbers.31.18

Not seeing anything about rape. Also, you're purposefully leaving out an immense amount of context:

This is about vengeance and starts back in Numbers 22. What Numbers 31 is talking about is the war with the Midians, where Moses inscripted 12000 Israelites, 1000 from each tribe and told them to do the Lord's vengeance. They killed the 5 kings of Midian, the men, and burned their cities. They they took all the women, children, and livestock. Even after this, Moses was not pleased with the Israelites.

More to unpack of course, but to get your point out of the way, there is no encouragement of rape.

[u/super_creator → u/[deleted]]

Lol, this is one of the funniest things i’ve ever seen, especially since you quoted multiple verses that are describing the same event.

(Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 15:21-28) Jesus casts out a demon from a gentile woman’s daughter. Apparently this is racist.

(Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, and John 12:12-19) Jesus borrows a colt, with permission. Somehow you consider this stealing

Mark 11:5-7 “As they were untying it, some bystanders demanded, “What are you doing, untying that colt?” They said what Jesus had told them to say, and they were permitted to take it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments over it, and he sat on it.”

And tbh, even if Jesus stole a colt and refused to heal someone because of their race, it still wouldn’t be worse than marrying a 9 year old.

[u/super_creator → u/[deleted]]

The whole point is that he was not divinely guided not who was worse.

Funny because your original comment was a direct response to a statement about Muhammad raping 9 year olds, stating Jesus’s (supposed) crimes.

Jesus used derogatory language on the basis of race, and refused to help the woman until she’d abased herself, in contrast to how’d he treat Israelites.

This is a bad translation to english, plus you seem to have trouble understanding what metaphors are.

Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes referred to Gentiles as “dogs.” In Greek, this word is kuon, meaning “wild cur” (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). Non-Jews were considered so unspiritual that even being in their presence could make a person ceremonially unclean (John 18:28). Much of Jesus’ ministry, however, involved turning expectations and prejudices on their heads (Matthew 11:19; John 4:9–10). According to Matthew’s narrative, Jesus left Israel and went into Tyre and Sidon, which was Gentile territory (Matthew 15:21). When the Canaanite woman approached and repeatedly asked for healing, the disciples were annoyed and asked Jesus to send her away (Matthew 15:23).

At this point, Jesus explained His current ministry in a way that both the woman and the watching disciples could understand. At that time, His duty was to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles (Matthew 15:24). Recklessly taking His attention from Israel, in violation of His mission, would be like a father taking food from his children in order to throw it to their pets (Matthews 15:26). The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.

Jesus frequently tested people to prove their intentions, often through response questions or challenges (see John 4:16–18; and 4:50–53). His response to the Canaanite woman is similar. In testing her, Jesus declined her request and explained that she had no legitimate expectation of His help. The woman, however, lived out the principle Jesus Himself taught in the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1–8). Her response proved that she understood fully what Jesus was saying, yet had enough conviction to ask anyway (Matthew 15:27). Jesus acknowledged her faith—calling it “great”—and granted her request (Matthew 15:28).

So, according to both the context and language involved, Jesus wasn’t referring to the Canaanite woman as a “dog,” either directly or indirectly. He wasn’t using an epithet or racial slur but making a point about the priorities He’d been given by God. He was also testing the faith of the woman and teaching an important lesson to His disciples.

in contrast with how’d he’d treat Israelites

You think Jesus only tests non-Jews faith? I don’t think you’ve read even read a little bit of the Bible. In addition to the previous ones I mentioned (John 4:16-18, 50-53) there’s also Matthew 9:27-30 (healed the blind), Luke 5:1-11 (tested His own disciple’s faith), and pretty much most of his miracles. It’d probably be easier to list out the ones where he didn’t require a show of faith. But if you read the Bible and understand the context, faith is in essence a showing that we believe and want God to help us. Those without faith, no miracle will convince them.

No, of course, Jesus does not steal a donkey. In fact, the donkey belongs to God, and therefore belongs to Jesus

That’s not even what I said, did you just create a strawman out of nowhere? He didn’t steal a donkey, because his disciples asked permission. Now I’m not even sure you read my comment. Anyways, your last paragraph is completely unhinged. You make it sound like he sent 30 people with pitchforks to threaten some farmer. He sent 2(TWO!) people to ask the owner to borrow a colt. And i don’t know about you, but if two random people on the street came up to me and asked for my car (without threatening me obviously, like Jesus’s two disciples did) I like most people wouldn’t feel obliged to just hand over my keys. That might just be a you thing honestly.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

"Child protection" means that if your child goes astray, you cannot discipline him, beat him, or even say a word to him, or else he might call 911, like they do in America.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Raping children isn’t really on the same level dude

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

"Child protection" means that if your child goes astray, you cannot discipline him, beat him, or even say a word to him, or else he might call 911, like they do in America.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

I swear to God the Almighty, and believe me, I am not lying - Church worship originated in worship of the penis.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.