What does this means?


“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10). “And [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom” (Matthew 25:1). “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32).

What does this means?


“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10). “And [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom” (Matthew 25:1). “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32). It means "[King Solomon]" didn't ever learn how to share.

Strange...
You keep talking about it day and night and still you don't know your motive.:help:

OK from my findings...
Polygamy - The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. In other words sharing is caring. :laugh:

Is polygamy allowed in Christianity?

And it's even practiced before Islam.

HH who said I talk about it day and night :rolleyes:

In other words sharing is caring. :laugh:
In a certain sense yes, but am afraid the care is for the man himself :sweat:
HH your humor disgusting girl :yuck: :haha:

Icey Exodus is Old Testament and not reflective of the beliefs of Christianity. although I don't believe that Jews typically practiced polygamy either, it was quite common for the rulers to have multiple marriages of state ...

Come to think of it though, I don't think Jesus (or Paul ,who is attributed with writing much of the New Testament) has anything to say about monogomy vs. polygamy. Maybe some of the resident Catholics know? But Mormons and various other splinter sects have been polygamous so I don't think it is prohibited.

Jesus didn't make up a lot of rules to follow, he basically said just be nice to each other and godly in your personal behavior.

What does this means?


“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10). “And [King Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3).

I can explain the quotes from the Torah, but not the other quotes; Jews do not accept the "New Testament."

re quote no. 1: Biblical law imposes three obligations upon the husband, to
provide his wife with food, clothing, and conjugal rights, i.e., satisfy her desire for relations (and not the opposite, I might point out).

re quote no. 2: Polygamy is permitted according to Torah law, but discouraged. When the forefathers did it, they practiced it out of necessity, not preference. Nowadays it is forbidden to European men by rabbinic decree, but still permitted to those of Spanish descent, though only when necessary (e.g., no children from 1st wife after many yrs. of marriage).

I can explain the quotes from the Torah, but not the other quotes; Jews do not accept the "New Testament."


Why Jews don't accept the "New Testament"?


re quote no. 1: Biblical law imposes three obligations upon the husband, to
provide his wife with food, clothing, and conjugal rights, i.e., satisfy her desire for relations (and not the opposite, I might point out).


What do you mean by not the opposite?


re quote no. 2: Polygamy is permitted according to Torah law, but discouraged. When the forefathers did it, they practiced it out of necessity, not preference. Nowadays it is forbidden to European men by rabbinic decree, but still permitted to those of Spanish descent, though only when necessary (e.g., no children from 1st wife after many yrs. of marriage).

If you believe that God made this rule and allow it for men as per the Torah, then how can a human beings allow it to some people and don't allow it to others? I agree it's an optional matter and not a must but it's permitted.

1) Jews believe that Jesus was a false prophet. He led the people astray after a false deity, and told them to abandon G-d's Law. The Torah explicitly says Deut. [18:18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. [18:19] It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. [18:20] But the Prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same Prophet shall die.

2) according to the Torah, the woman has no obligation to satisfy the man's needs for intercourse, though it is proper for her to do so. The main obligation is the husband's. It's sexist, I know.

3) Because the Torah often employs general expressions and principles, proper interpretation is obviously essential and must clearly have existed from the time the Written Law was first revealed at Sinai. It surprises many people to learn that the Torah itself does, in fact, explicitly and unequivocally appoint interpreters for its own words:

“Appoint for yourself judges and police in all your settlements...You must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they tell you.” [Deut. 16:18, ibid. 17:10-11]

Thus it is the Jewish Sages who were granted the exclusive authority to interpret the Law.

Since they do it by G-d's command, according to the rules and traditions of interpretation preserved in the Jewish tradition, their teachings are also the word of G-d.

Back to the topic: according to the Torah's laws for non-Jews, the Noahide Code, for non-Jews polygamy is permitted, but discouraged.

1) Jews believe that Jesus was a false prophet. He led the people astray after a false deity, and told them to abandon G-d's Law. The Torah explicitly says Deut. [18:18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. [18:19] It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. [18:20] But the Prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same Prophet shall die.


Who is the prophet refered to in the Torah in verse [18:18]?

Do you really believe that a prophet will lead people astray and stand against Allah will instead of guiding people to the straight path?


2) according to the Torah, the woman has no obligation to satisfy the man's needs for intercourse, though it is proper for her to do so. The main obligation is the husband's. It's sexist, I know.

Do you believe that God rules are sexist as per the Torah?


3) Because the Torah often employs general expressions and principles, proper interpretation is obviously essential and must clearly have existed from the time the Written Law was first revealed at Sinai. It surprises many people to learn that the Torah itself does, in fact, explicitly and unequivocally appoint interpreters for its own words:

“Appoint for yourself judges and police in all your settlements...You must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they tell you.” [Deut. 16:18, ibid. 17:10-11]

Thus it is the Jewish Sages who were granted the exclusive authority to interpret the Law.

Since they do it by G-d's command, according to the rules and traditions of interpretation preserved in the Jewish tradition, their teachings are also the word of G-d.


Don't you think such beliefs led to change original rules to become for example sexist as above or discourage polagamy or stoning rules?

[QUOTE=monotheism]1) Jews believe that Jesus was a false prophet. He led the people astray after a false deity, and told them to abandon G-d's Law. The Torah explicitly says Deut. [18:18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. [18:19] It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. [18:20] But the Prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same Prophet shall die.

Actually, Jesus never said to abandon God's Law. In fact, He even said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus even admonished His listeners to obey the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3). Jesus' problem with them can be seen in the rest of the passage: the Pharisees did not follow their own teachings, so Jesus condemned them.

Who is the prophet refered to in the Torah in verse [18:18]?

It's not referring to anyone in particular. It means that if someone--whoever it may be--comes along and rejects G-d's Law etc. and claims to speak in G-d's Name, he's a false prophet.

Do you really believe that a prophet will lead people astray and stand against Allah will instead of guiding people to the straight path?

could you reword this? I don't understand the question

Do you believe that God rules are sexist as per the Torah?

not at all, G-d forbid
I was, like, joking? I was pointing out that here the Torah favours women over men, that's all

Don't you think such beliefs led to change original rules to become for example sexist as above or discourage polagamy or stoning rules?

the Torah's "original" rule was that the man has the obligation to satisfy the woman and not the opposite

polygamy was always discouraged, because it's a big undertaking to satisfy the physical and emotional needs of multiple wives

The purpose of the rabbinic decrees (in this case, forbidding and not merely discouraging polygamy for European aka Ashkenazic men) is that as the generations go by, and go further from the National Revelation of the Torah at Sinai, they became lower and lower, and so they need extra "fences" to distance themselves from stumbling and committing a Biblically prohibited Law.

G-d Himself invested the rabbis with the authority to make these decrees to fortify the observance of G-d's Law when the Torah was given at Sinai, as I quoted in the verses above: "You must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they tell you."

E.g., in this case, it was seen by Rabeinu Gershom that the people of his generation in Europe were simply, on the whole, no longer on the level to be devoted enough to satisfy the needs for intimacy of two (or more) wives, which was causing many problems. So, to fix up this situation, he exercised his G-d-given right and authority to make a decree forbidding it for European men (those under his jurisdiction). But that decree did not affect Jews in Spain and the Arabic lands, whose rabbis did not feel it was necessary to forbid this practice outright.


re stoning and the death penalty in general: that too was never changed G-d forbid

From the outset, the death penalty could only be administered by the Jewish high court, known as the Sanhedrin, if the Jews had their Temple in Jerusalem, and control over the Holy Land. The Sanhedrin would sit and judge cases in the Temple, in an area known as the lishkas hagazis.

The Jewish people had two Temples, and during that time the death penalty was practiced, albeit rarely. Since the 2nd Temple was destroyed, though, and the Jewish people were exiled, there can be no death penalty because we have no Temple. This is also the reason that we can no longer offer sacrifices. For the meantime.

However, very soon the Moshiach, the Jewish Messiah will come, as predicted by the Jewish prophets, and rebuild the Temple. Then the death penalty and sacrifices will be reinstated. (Though when Moshiach comes (may it be NOW), we will no longer desire to sin, and therefore the death penalty won't be carried out anyway.)

I hope this explanation has been satisfactory.

A sort of 'mentor' of mine is without religion (I think he is deeply spiritual, but doesnt follow any religion), and he thinks extremely highly of Jesus. He sees him as one of the greatest people that ever lived: not from a religious point of view (at least if he does, hes never expressed it) but from a moral view. The lesson here is that if we could all accept the lessons learnt from Jesus, the world would be a better place regardless of religion.

Talk about Christianity and Polygamy!!! :hyper:

I heard that there's a new branch of Christianity actually allow their followers to practice polygamy!!! :eyes:

I also read an acticle, the sex ratio will be 1(man):4(women) in futre! In other words, polygamy may become legal and common due to this reason!
If polygamy is illegal and unacceptable, they will be many single women in futre! Therefore, the practice of polygamy and monogamy can also be discussed in social aspects, instead of religion! More interesting... :scratch:

The lesson here is that if we could all accept the lessons learnt from Jesus, the world would be a better place regardless of religion.

But what many people don't realize is that he was taking his ideas directly from the Torah, which was given to the Jews to teach to the world. So yes, if people were to follow the lessons learnt from the Torah, the world would surely be a better place.

I thought this article below ,is an interesting one. I will post it for the sake of others especially muslim to read.

1. Definition of Polygamy

Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.


Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?


2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,"marry only one". The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

Hindus are more polygynous than Muslims
The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961 was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.
4. Qur’an permits limited polygyny

As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says ‘marry only one’. The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."

[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women...." [Al-Qur’an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

i. ‘Fard’ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

ii. ‘Mustahab’ i.e. recommended or encouraged

iii. ‘Mubah’ i.e. permissible or allowed

iv. ‘Makruh’ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

v. ‘Haraam’ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.


5. Average life span of females is more than that of malesBy nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.


6. India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide

India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.


7. World female population is more than male population

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.


8. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

Articles ended.By Dr Zakir Naik.

:rolleyes:

New York's male population is 1/3 gay?? Hardly.

I wonder how much of the rest of the article is built on lies.

Oh yea, and the author forgot an option for those "extra" women - those who don't WANT to be married (or are gay themselves so will pair up). I mean come ON - women's ONLY two choices are to become either wives or "public property"???

don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against polygyny OR polyandry and think the government should stop telling people what to do ... but by using false "statistics" and false dichotomies, he desperately weakens his argument.

Obiously Zakir Naik is an idiot.

In Nepal, polygamy is illegal, but many people practice it, especially in villages, and the govt. isnt too concerned. Its not against the official religion.

@moonchild: what woman doesnt want to be in a relationship, to be loved and cherished? A small percentage. In Islam, the only romantic relationship permissible is marriage, hence one would assume that, in an islamically ideal world, they would want to be married.

:rolleyes:

New York's male population is 1/3 gay?? Hardly.

I wonder how much of the rest of the article is built on lies.

Oh yea, and the author forgot an option for those "extra" women - those who don't WANT to be married (or are gay themselves so will pair up). I mean come ON - women's ONLY two choices are to become either wives or "public property"???

don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against polygyny OR polyandry and think the government should stop telling people what to do ... but by using false "statistics" and false dichotomies, he desperately weakens his argument.

Obiously Zakir Naik is an idiot.By sanwin

To say the truth I didnt want to write anything more, but just to make things clearer: If the above article seems not scientific,,, are both your replies based on scientific statistics?? :wave:

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

This @ss, Mr. Naik, made the outrageous claim that 1/3 of New Yorks male population is gay.

It is not our responsibility to prove him wrong.

For example, If I said that 2/3 of women in Oman are lesbian, would it be reasonable for you to expect me to prove it or for you to disprove it ?

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
It is not our responsibility to prove him wrong.

If its not your responsibility why answering in the first place?
I would like to know the exact statistics so that we know its not. I would be very greatfful to know especially that the article hasnt mensioned from where his claim came from.. in other words contradict him in that point & others as well. because there are some things which are new to us here?

In Evidance Based Medicine (EBM) we were tought to analyse each statement, & there is something called the P value which is accepted measure of a test or statement. this value even if it was of negative value, that statement (or test)would still accepted as valid under simple obvservational rules till proven otherwise.Meaning his claim would be right untill you proove he is wrong.

Good God, I hope you don't practise medicine this way was well.

Sorry, albumin, the rest of the world disagrees with you.

If you publish a statistic, YOU are expected to be able to back it up. Don't you have that expectation of the medical literature you read? Don't others expect the values you publish to be "real"? I'm afraid if you think you can just make up data, publish it, and expect others to prove you wrong, you would not get far in your profession in America, or any other scientifically rigorous country.

But since you're too lazy to check your own numbers:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20010701/5/598
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/ah/glreport.html#popu.html

the official US census estimate is about 1% (based on census responses), although gays themselves think it is probably closer to 20% ... based on the logic that although in any society about 10% of men are gay, gay men are drawn to large cities with a population of like-minded and accepting individuals... and ... sadly, they tend to move to areas which have facilities that can treat their aids...

as to my other objection, what is your opinion on unmarried women becoming "public property"?

Not in MY world, and I pity the woman who buys into it, or has to live somewhere that this is how she is perceived.

PT: even islamic countries don't even come CLOSE to creating an "islamically ideal world", and the rest of us don't necessarily want that. Perhaps the percentage of women ( AND men!) who don't WANT to be married or in a relationship is small ... does that invalidate their right to do so? Lots of reason to prefer being single - she's just come out of a bad marriage, or been widowed, and not ready to find another man ... she's focused on her career ... she hasn't found someone she wants to marry yet...
why is it up to US to tell her she can't????

Here's a poll: how many women would rather be single than share a man with someone else? I submit that, like the likely percentage of each choice above, the likely percentage of women who would prefer polygamy AND find a polygymous situation that actually WORKS is pretty small.

As anecdotal evidence, nearly all of the muslim women on this board have, over the years, stated firmly that THEY aren't interested in being in a polygamous marriage. And they are the very ones who feel they MUST defend it religiously and have been conditioned since birth to accept it!

Good God, I hope you don't practise medicine this way was well.
ASK MY CONSULTANTS IN THE WESTERN WORLD THEY WOULD TELL YOU.not only from whom I learnd But HOW I practice for me to be accepted & admired to work in their system.

Sorry, albumin, the rest of the world disagrees with you.
If you publish a statistic, YOU are expected to be able to back it up. Don't you have that expectation of the medical literature you read? Don't others expect the values you publish to be "real"? I'm afraid if you think you can just make up data, publish it, and expect others to prove you wrong, you would not get far in your profession in America, or any other scientifically rigorous country.

But since you're too lazy to check your own numbers:
I thought that You were the one who should bring the SCIENTIFIC DEBATE since you mensioned it earlier, so as a part of your research It should have been included in your first post & Not using the How much the rest is build on liesstatement.

the official US census estimate is about 1% (based on census responses), although gays themselves think it is probably closer to 20% ... based on the logic that although in any society about 10% of men are gay Good so they are different statatistics & we dont know which one is right & which isnt,& the 20% figure is not far away from 33% which is 1/3 of the that population.We also can get different statatistic values, & still we havent prooved anything, Because after all, the Exact Number is not known,& with whatever statastical methods you use The only ONE who Knows Is the CREATOR,& so PRACTICALLY SAYING we end up with using a logic, each has its own, for example using your SCientific article:based on the logic that although in any society about 10% of men are gay, gay men are drawn to So what do you mean by logic here.

Exactly, & thats why we use P value plus other test or reserch methods.(If you know what a P value is you wouldnt be answering me "as if I dont Know how to do a research" dear.It takes few people in my profession to understand how to estimate it & how to do it. S So If You read carefully What I wrote, & if you are Leasy to read it & understand it I will bring it to you:
this value even if it was of negative value, that statement (or test)would still accepted as valid under simple obvservational rules till proven otherwise.Meaning his claim would be right untill you proove he is wrong.& If you have been practicing medicine for some years You would know that Statistics are not always used as a guide lines. For instance we use certain drugs in Resuscitation that never have been to be really valid BBBut They May be Of Value & we (Including the americansstill use it for decades now.( I also wouldnt want to work in the states I preffer the british or Australsian ones (you could check it up Why .

public property"?
Its for the western world that the women is a public property, cant you see that, she is in an every advatisement with a sexy looking uniform (NUDE), for us she is well protected

even islamic countries don't even come CLOSE to creating an "islamically ideal world", and the rest of us don't necessarily want that
Good you know that we dont have an ideal Islamic world, & in any way you are not part of US (muslims) so in majority of us , we dont want to stay singles, because we cant have our sexual desires as a public property, so I can sleep with any one whether am married or not.

she's focused on her career ... she hasn't found someone she wants to marry yet...
Isnt that so contradicting, she is focussed on her carrier,, at the same time she wants to be married but she hasnt found someone yet,, It means she know that ultimatly she want to.

Here's a poll: how many women would rather be single than share a man with someone else?
we should do that study , & for the same above reason with others (family stability & kids morality) we infact should asked thoes who had shared a husband & see whether they preffer a divorce on staying with her husband.
&& If you Read again carefully you will note that Polygemy Is mainly Permitted not an obligate to our world & so in any way there arent many who would marry more than one, because the permit was ment to be a solution to a problem & not ##a must##.

And they are the very ones who feel they MUST defend it religiously and have been conditioned since birth to accept it!Because of the same reason again, Its not a compulsay thing , Its permissible thats why ladies tend to refuse ,&but we are also Born to ACCEPT DEATH AS OUR ULTIMATE FATE, Would you change that dear.

If its not your responsibility why answering in the first place?

That is the noble mission to perform.

That is truly amazing logic.

1% based on official census statistics.
20% based on what the gay community FEELS.
33% is not too far off, so Mr. Naik must be right.

Based on a theoritical population of 10,000,000

1% = 100,000
20% = 2,000,000
33% = 3.300,000

So a range of values form 100,000 to 3,300,000 is not to far apart.

Please do not practice medicine the same way. You might decide that a drug in 1%, 20% or 33% concentration is all the same and just kill your patient.

That is truly amazing logic.

1% based on official census statistics.
20% based on what the gay community FEELS.
33% is not too far off, so Mr. Naik must be right.

Based on a theoritical population of 10,000,000

1% = 100,000
20% = 2,000,000
33% = 3.300,000

So a range of values form 100,000 to 3,300,000 is not to far apart.

Please do not practice medicine the same way. You might decide that a drug in 1%, 20% or 33% concentration is all the same and just kill your patient.

I thought it would be nice to educate you a littile bit about medicine & its epidemiology, & i am happy that you didnt learn medicine , because apart from scinece knowlage we also use common sense & instinct. I would just give a small example so the rest of the members wouldnt be mislead, Hoping that lesson would be understood between lines.

The Risk percentage of the patients who had a needle prick from an HIV patient is 0.3% , but if the needle had a much more blood in the needle then the risk may increase from 2-40% Now why do we use such a huge range when we have all the science around us.
Because there is always a diverse range in statistics & in each study there will be a differnce , never ever the same & infact the difference could be such high.

To be a good clinician I only need My knowlage, my skills,my experiance, my confidance, my instinct & most of all my good attitude with my patients, I never heard of an External exeminer called sanwin to pass any physicion.

Of course, like the good muslim you are, you can never be wrong.

:hyper:

Even when you stretch the facts from 1% official statistics to Mr. Naiks lunatic percentage of 33%.

Keep living in your delusional world.

I thought that You were the one who should bring the SCIENTIFIC DEBATE since you mensioned it earlier, so as a part of your research It should have been included in your first post

You still don't get it. You introduced statistics in your article. I simply questioned their validity. I happen to know from my reading that what you posted is almost certainly incorrect. The author failed to reference a source for his values so I couldn't check his source. It was your absurd response ("I can post anything I want and it's up to you to prove me wrong") which sparked a discussion on what is scientifically valid.

Again. The burden of publishing correct data (and being able to back up his/her claims through references to their source) is on the author. Do you still assert that this statement is wrong?

She doesn't have to. She is a good muslim woman after all and is above reproach.

the official US census estimate is about 1% (based on census responses), although gays themselves think it is probably closer to 20% ... based on the logic that although in any society about 10% of men are gay Good so they are different statatistics & we dont know which one is right & which isnt,& the 20% figure is not far away from 33% which is 1/3 of the that population.

You say you use common sense, why don't you apply some of it here.

1% = based on the number of self-reported census responses. as you really ought to know, anything which is socially unacceptable (which homosexuality still in the US to a large number of people) is under-reported when relying on survey responses. 1% is based on the number of people ready to admit they are gay on an official government document that identifies them by name. IN addition, it is only counting adult homosexuals who were living with another man in the year 2000 and admitted it.
(for a longer answer see here: http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm)

10% = average incidence of homosexuality in the human population based on a large number of studies done using a variety of methods. True, reported incidence varies widely depending on the sample taken, the definition used, and of course the willingness of men to admit they are gay over the years. Actually more often what is reported is "5-10%", but everyone knows that the nature of the topic leads to difficulty in measuring. For further discussion, see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Prevalence_of_homosexuality


20% = a self-admitted total guess, not scientifically valid in any way and clearly noted by me as someone's guess.

33% = an unreferenced guess by someone with an ulterior motive for both portraying New York City as a hotbed of sin and for overstating the lack of men available for marriage.


It's hard to know how to respond to your comment that 20% is "not that far away" from 33%. I assume from you other responses that you have a basic knowledge of statistics, so you should know that only in very small samples would 20% (1/5) vs. 33% (1/3) be considered "not statistically different"; whereas the group we are talking about is hundreds of thousands of respondents (at least for the figures actually based on samples and not guesses). In fact, only if you had a sample size of 200 people or less, would you fail to perceive a statistical difference between 20% and 33%.

Actually, though, it's more accurate to compare your figure (33%) with the closest value which has any scientific backing (10%) , and anyone would be hard-pressed to insist that there's no important difference between 1/10th of a population vs. 1/3 of a population.

Nonetheless, as you say, "we don't know which one is right" in terms of which value to use ... so is it REALLY common sense to accept the MOST EXTREME estimate (based on NOTHING VERIFIABLE) and throw out all the more moderate estimates which are actually based on research?

Is this how you choose your heart medications?

Exactly, & thats why we use P value plus other test or reserch methods.

I'm a statistician. Part of my thesis was on the mistakes people make comparing p-values. I know what one is. Apparently, considerably better than you do:

this value even if it was of negative value, that statement (or test)would still accepted as valid under simple obvservational rules till proven otherwise.Meaning his claim would be right untill you proove he is wrong.

Which observational rules are you referring to? You haven't yet established that his value came from observation at all! Show me that SOMETHING was observed besides the little voices in this dudes' head!!!

no p-value was provided along with the 33% stated. In fact, no information at all as to the origin of "33%" was provided. Thus, there can be no meaningful discussion as to the validity of his "statistics" since it hasn't been established that they are indeed STATISTICS - that this is anything other than wishful thinking.

The bottom line is, until you collect some data that has a mean whose 95% confidence interval includes a 1/3 incidence of homosexuality, you've got no observational basis for your statement. You can't invoke p-values until you show that actual data was involved in his thought process.

You are making some weird assumption that he has data with a large enough p-value to show that 33% isn't different from 20% ... which if you think it through, destroys the main argument that there are so many homosexuals in NYC that women are desparate for marriage partners.

A better assumption for your purposes would be that his claim of 33% is based on a study which DOES have a relatively small confidence interval which supports his claim that marriagable men are scarce. But we aren't even close to that kind of discipline in either HIS thinking or YOURS , are we?

For instance we use certain drugs in Resuscitation that never have been {shown} to be really valid BBBut They May be Of Value

why use drugs that aren't valid? so you can bill for it? FDA approval requires rigorous testing for efficacy including specialized statistical methods. If you use a drug for an off-label use, you're by-passing all of the safety and efficacy standards. Anything that is truly valuable as a treatment can be proven through clinical trials to be valuable, should anyone care to run the test (or even collect the data) ... and this is done ALL THE TIME (in fact, it's part of my job). YOU may be ignoring the studies that are done regarding the drugs you use, but luckily for the public , not everyone does. In fact, drugs which MAY have off-label value are FREQUENTLY studied prospectively through data collection in the units to prove their value in that application. I'm surprised you aren't aware of that.

Interesting thread.

To answer your poll Moonie: I wouldn't agree on 'sharing' my husband. lol.

I'm a statistician. Part of my thesis was on the mistakes people make comparing p-values. I know what one is. Apparently, considerably better than you do:

A statisticion is not an epidemiologist as to a prescriptin is not an analgesia
Knowing the data & how they get analysed is not the same as applying to reality, & thats why Validity is not the last question in science, instead the last question is: CA THIS BE APPLIED TO THE POPULATION I HAVE?
P- value was mensioned here to tell you that WE as Profesinals do use it for data interpretation but ultimate results will always be: Is The test or drug valid for my specific patient or not.

Show me that SOMETHING was observed besides the little voices in this dudes' head!!!
Its very obvious for the New york has a large population of Gays & Lasbian & now there are even schools are build specially for these people in there.unless you havent notice that yet. & Since he didnt include the statistic data does not mean he brought it from his head..Neither does that mean your statistics are valid either, you see even the 10% figure is not acceptable for some(for some americans its due to political reasons), see this article for example:
Professor Alfred Kinsey, in his landmark Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), did not simply count "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals." Rather, he rated his subjects on a scale of 1 to 6, least homosexual to most homosexual. He then came up with figures for three levels of homosexual behavior. He figured at 37 per cent the proportion of the male population that had "had some homosexual experience" to the point of orgasm. The 10 per cent figure that Kinsey did use was that 10 per cent of males are "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55." The figure for men who are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives drops to 4 per cent.

Another one :For example, a telephone survey reported in the January 1990 Journal of Homosexuality, by DeKalb University sociologist Joseph Harry, asked 663 men: Would you say that you are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex or members of your own sex?" Only 3.7 per cent said they were attracted to their own.

Professor Harry concluded: "The present data provide no support for Kinsey's 10 per cent estimate of homosexuality in adult men," but rather "are considerably closer to Gebhard's one of the aforementioned Kinsey researchers 4 per cent."

Another telephone survey, conducted in 1986 of San Francisco males, found that 56,000 claimed to be either homosexual or bisexual. This accounts for 15 per cent of the total male population of the city, or about 18 per cent of those over the age of 13.

[COLOR=Blue]until you collect some data that has a mean whose 95% confidence interval includes a 1/3 incidence of homosexuality, you've got no observational basis for your statement. You can't invoke p-values until you show that actual data was involved in his thought process

I havent also seen neither any where in the webs about the the P-value & 95%C.I & all what I got was this:

Usually the 10 per cent figure is given in a context implying that no other studies of male homosexuality have been done

None of this intrinsically says anything about the morality of homosexuality or homosexual practices. By definition, geniuses account for a tiny portion of the population, yet nobody calls them deviant or demands that they be denied rights. But to the extent that homosexual activists believe it is very important for the world to know that they constitute 10 per cent of the population – and therefore, by inference, 10 per cent of the electorate or of the military – it seems that it ought to be very important to know if they do not.
So far none has been reliable, & for different defeniton some would take 37% as a possible underreported homosexuals.

Underreporting is always going to be a problem in such surveys, because of social opprobrium against homosexuality.


why use drugs that aren't valid? so you can bill for it?
Because in Medicine(& in reality) we have classification of resuscitating drugs:
1.Defenatly Useful
2.Probably useful& not harmful
3.probably harmful
4. defenatly harmful.
we use the first 2 catagorries, mainly because there are no data enough to support the drugs deffinet benifits & for ethical reasons, we cannot omit drugs for study .

THIS IS NOT AN OMAI OR ARAB WORLD RULE, WE LEARNED THSES FROM OURWESTERN DOCTORS.

You say you use common sense, why don't you apply some of it here.
I am doing my best I dont know why are you strugling ?

and throw out all the more moderate estimates which are actually based on research?
So Far no valid research based on your own american researchers. with the reasons above,

Is this how you choose your heart medications?
I have a divers range of heart medication, I go by the Deffenative search results BUT & ONLY BUT I ask my self first, DOES THIS DRUG APPROPRIATE OR NOT FOR SPECIFIC CONDITION , SPECIFIC PATIENT & AVOID POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS BY SIMPLE HISTORY & EXAMINATION.


.[/QUOTE=sanwin25]She doesn't have to. She is a good muslim woman after all and is above reproach.[/QUOTE]
Interesting enough to know that any one can log in with your name & reply to any thread with the same common answers, you dont have to bother much about a reply.

cerulean
Thanks for your conytribution to this thread.

& Even that we went away from the main topic magically no one has noticed I would like to announce that I will be off internet for the next few weeks for exams & interviews ,I already receive a warning for my husband about the toomuch net surfing, so if any thing to be replyed at I will when I come back.
thanks

I already receive a warning for my husband about the toomuch net surfing

All this in the year 2004.

:hyper:

:wave: Polygamy. :wave:

In Evidance Based Medicine (EBM) we were tought to analyse each statement, & there is something called the P value which is accepted measure of a test or statement. this value even if it was of negative value, that statement (or test)would still accepted as valid under simple obvservational rules till proven otherwise. Meaning his claim would be right untill you proove he is wrong.
I vaguely remember from my college days that the valid range for P-Value is from 0 to 1. What does a negative P-Value mean? It is like saying the population of a city is -2 which doesn’t make any sense to me. :no:

Moonie, maybe you can answer my question since Um is not allowed to surf for a while.

I vaguely remember from my college days that the valid range for P-Value is from 0 to 1. What does a negative P-Value mean? It is like saying the population of a city is -2 which doesn’t make any sense to me. :no:
.

correct, a p-value is a probability with range 0-1 (0=0%, 1=100%). Perhaps she mean a p-value with "negative result" meaning the hypothes was not rejected, but it's correct to say a LARGE p-value not a "negative".

All that is all by the way now. Um is being disciplined by her husband for spending too much time on the internet.

I think its unfair and un(hu)manly to mock someone while they are away and not able to reply. Any more posts on um albanin's current inablitiy to browse will be deleted.

I think its unfair and un(hu)manly to mock someone while they are away and not able to reply. Any more posts on um albanin's current inablitiy to browse will be deleted.Normally I'd agree with you, but um albanin herself posted "she was disciplined by her husband for spending too much time on the internet."

She made it fair game ... :duck: