Support NeoGAF

[king zell]

Azih I'll PM you my E-mail

GSG Flash

Would you prefer us to call it Salafism? (as Saudi's prefer to be called) Not that it reall matters because Wahabism and Salafism are practically the same thing. And it's not the media that's using Wahabism to hurt SA or something, it's the rules and laws of wahabism that's hurting itself, I have read up on wahabism and know a great deal about and seriously, a lot of their rulings are barbaric and contradictory. Oh and just because you don't believe in wahabism as a seperate sect of Islam doesn't mean that it isn't, most of the world and Islamic communities do and I tend to agree with that considering their different rules and laws from the other branches.

It doesn't matter what you call it since you look at it the same way.. I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm right.. just take what a say as "another opinion".. I think that the main problem is that many people mix between Islamic teachings in SA and gov or "ijtihad" from some people that arrived at decisions such as women not driving.. also mixing between the teaching and other people who understand it in the wrong way like deciding to kill americans working in SA..

 

[Mumbles]

If he lied on purpose, he is not a moral person. A moral person would not resort to deceit and fraud to achieve his purpose.

This is not necessarily true. A person who, for example, wishes to keep one person from harming another is perfectly justified in lying in order to calm the attacker down, send him away from the person he wishes to harm, and so forth. It's nice to say stuff like "don't lie", but the simple fact of the matter is that it's sometimes necessary to do so.

If he was crazy, then why would we accept anything he said? Jesus said a lot of crazy stuff like loving your neighbour and not caring about material posessions. If he is God, and what he says is true, then it's worth not caring about material possessions since there is something better ahead in the future. If he's crazy, then fuck everyone else, material possessions are probably the best thing to focus on (for one example).

This is simple ad hominem argument. "Jesus is crazy, therefore it's not good to treat others kindly.", rather than evaluating the claim on it's own. IOW, just because the looney thinks you can't fly by sheer willpower, doesn't make it a good idea to go jumping off of cliffs.

Although, to be blunt, Jesus certainly sounded like a crazy person from what I've read. Contradicting himself left and right, claiming that he had a person relationship with gods, telling goofy stories, etc. And he really wasn't the first person to come up with the golden rule, so I'm not sure why I should consider him to be any sort of great moral figure.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

It is when everything Jesus said is predicated on his being God. Jesus dying on the cross to pay for the sins of the world depends on him being divine. It's the entire point of Christianity.

OK, but you've backed off a bit from Lewis' original argument. Christians may understand Jesus' divinity to be the essential premise for all his teachings, but that doesn't prevent others from finding different ways of extracting value from them. Again, many religions and philosophers throughout history have drawn from the ideas of earlier thinkers while rejecting some of their premises; the old ideas are put on a new foundation.

 

[karasu]

Although, to be blunt, Jesus certainly sounded like a crazy person from what I've read.

Well, by today's standards so did Siddhartha, Ghandi, and in some respects the Dalai Lama.

Plus, Jesus didn't contradict himself. The contradictions come from what his followers wrote about him and sometimes their interpretations of his message. Furthermore, of course he didn't come up with the golden rule, he simply enforced it as the major tenet of his system of thought. Where it originally comes from doesn't matter in any way, shape, or form. The masses don't follow it because as usual the masses are senseless and self defeating.

 

[Fatghost]

This is not necessarily true. A person who, for example, wishes to keep one person from harming another is perfectly justified in lying in order to calm the attacker down, send him away from the person he wishes to harm, and so forth. It's nice to say stuff like "don't lie", but the simple fact of the matter is that it's sometimes necessary to do so.

But in Jesus' case, if he lied purposely, it was to mislead people. It's a bit different than lying to protect someone.

This is simple ad hominem argument. "Jesus is crazy, therefore it's not good to treat others kindly.", rather than evaluating the claim on it's own. IOW, just because the looney thinks you can't fly by sheer willpower, doesn't make it a good idea to go jumping off of cliffs.

Jesus' moral authority comes from his divine nature. Golden rule might make sense from a social perspective, but the majority of Christ's message was about believing in him and him being the only path to God. ie: if Christ is crazy, he is as bad as Ron L Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Shoko Asahara, or David Koresh. C.S.Lewis' point is not that it is wrong to say "Jesus was a nut bar with a few good ideas" he was pointing out you can't say "Jesus was a good moral teacher but not divine".

Although, to be blunt, Jesus certainly sounded like a crazy person from what I've read. Contradicting himself left and right, claiming that he had a person relationship with gods, telling goofy stories, etc. And he really wasn't the first person to come up with the golden rule, so I'm not sure why I should consider him to be any sort of great moral figure.

I think Rabbi Hillel came up with the Golden Rule a few decades before Christ. And Jesus' mood swings aren't any worse than the mood swings God has in the Old Testament.

OK, but you've backed off a bit from Lewis' original argument. Christians may understand Jesus' divinity to be the essential premise for all his teachings, but that doesn't prevent others from finding different ways of extracting value from them. Again, many religions and philosophers throughout history have drawn from the ideas of earlier thinkers while rejecting some of their premises; the old ideas are put on a new foundation.

The difference between say, Plato or Confucious or Kant and Jesus is that Jesus spent most of his time talking about how he was God and that he was the only path to salvation. Like I wrote a little earlier, you can't call Christ a good moral teacher but say he was not divine. You could say he is nuts but had a couple of good ideas, but that's as far as you can really get.

 

[FightyF]

Christians believe the same thing about Jesus. Saying Jesus was just a prophet is like saying the Koran is just a book. The Koran denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God incarnate. A Muslim would disagree that Jesus Christ is the same person as God the Father.

Therefore, Islam and Christianity are incompatible. You cannot be a Muslim and truly say the Bible is 100% accurate and the revealed word of God, because it conflicts with the Koran. You cannot be a Christian and say that the Koran is the word of god because it conflicts with the core belief that Jesus Christ is God.

The Koran does not conflict with the Gospel, but it does conflict with the modern day Bible, because people wrote it and re-wrote it to fit their political needs. The Gospel and Torah are seen as true books of God in the eyes of Muslims, whereas the current day Bible is seen as something watered down, changed, and corrupt compilation...which it is, no one can deny that.

The current day Bible was largely written by people hundreds of years after Jesus's time. Many of it's teachings are influenced by other cultures. The idea of Jesus being the son of God wasn't found in any of the teachings of the earlier prophets either.

The idea of him being a "Son of God" and the Trinity probably came about as a result of trying to make Christianity more compatible with Roman beliefs. Scratch the word "probably".

Secondly, I'm not surprised that this has been happening in Gitmo. The "War on Terrorism" has been mishandled by the President on day one. My criticization of the Bush Administration got me banned before...but I'm glad that people can finally see what I saw so long ago. He's going after the wrong people, breaking all the rules, creating more enemies, creating false enemies, and this nes comes as to no surprise.

Gitmo has always been the focus point of controversy and it has always been obvious that the whole concept of holding people and not giving them any rights means that anything can happen to them.

Does anyone want to talk about the REAL issue -- namely, the Bush Administration breaking the law?

I'm past the point of pointing my finger at the Bush Administration, I'm getting tired of it. The fact of the matter is, there are people whose job is to point fingers at them, namely the opposition parties.

What have the Democrats done? Torture has been an issue (or rather in the US, a non-issue) during the time of the election and not much was said. Now is a perfect time to point fingers and tell America that this war on terrorism has been a failure (in general) since it will do nothing less than create more hate for the US.

Oh and as far as people say "it's just a book"...that is your belief entirely, and you can believe that, it's your right.

But your a fucking idiot if you don't see what the problem is. This "War on Terrorism" can be EASILY turned into a "War against Islam" by groups like Al Qaeda. "Easily" being an extreme understatement.

They didn't just mishandle the Koran, they purposely violated and disrespected it.

Thus, one Muslim (of the Billion +) living in any part of the World can easily see that disrespect against Muslims and Islam. They will understandably take this as a PERSONAL OFFENSE.

How often in the history of mankind has a nation PERSONALLY OFFENDED over a Billion people?

Ignorant people won't see much of an issue. I hope the media makes it into a bigger issue, since it will educate the masses on how big of an issue this is in the rest of the World. Because if the rest of the World is mad, and most Americans are oblivious to this, the rest of the World may think that Americans simply don't care about it and didn't think anything wrong happened. I'm sure most Americans who know what has happened see this as a stupid, idiotic move and that some heads in government have to roll. But as we all know, the ratio of World-consious Americans to those who aren't isn't flattering. Otherwise the hate against the US will only build exponentially.

The reasoning behind the September 11th attacks had to with the US's foriegn policy in the Middle East. In reality, that foreign policy only affects a couple hundred million Muslims at most. Though the eyes of the Muslim World is often toward the conflict in Palestine/Israel, most aren't directly affected by it. But now you have a situation where every single Muslim in the entire World sees the US as a country that disrespects Muslims and Islam. I'll say it again, all this has done has created more hatred and distrust towards the US.

The Bush Administration can fix the situation. Fire the right people, kiss the feet of Muslim dignitaries, and it's all good. He can try to implement real change within the military so that this could be avoided...and he can focus on reshaping the war on terrorism to be more practical and legal.

But that's not gonna happen.

 

[GSG Flash]

GSG Flash



It doesn't matter what you call it since you look at it the same way.. I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm right.. just take what a say as "another opinion".. I think that the main problem is that many people mix between Islamic teachings in SA and gov or "ijtihad" from some people that arrived at decisions such as women not driving.. also mixing between the teaching and other people who understand it in the wrong way like deciding to kill americans working in SA..

Understood, although I still don't consider wahabi's muslims (well atleast not the radical "kill everyone but us" kind), I still acknowledge them as another sect of Islam (in name only, morally I don't consider them another sect of Islam because their actions defy the teachings of the prophet).

 

[Boogie]

The Koran does not conflict with the Gospel, but it does conflict with the modern day Bible, because people wrote it and re-wrote it to fit their political needs. The Gospel and Torah are seen as true books of God in the eyes of Muslims, whereas the current day Bible is seen as something watered down, changed, and corrupt compilation...which it is, no one can deny that.

Umm, yes, we can, and we do deny that.

The current day Bible was largely written by people hundreds of years after Jesus's time.

"Hundreds"? Umm, no.

 

[Zaptruder]

But in Jesus' case, if he lied purposely, it was to mislead people. It's a bit different than lying to protect someone.



Jesus' moral authority comes from his divine nature. Golden rule might make sense from a social perspective, but the majority of Christ's message was about believing in him and him being the only path to God. ie: if Christ is crazy, he is as bad as Ron L Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Shoko Asahara, or David Koresh. C.S.Lewis' point is not that it is wrong to say "Jesus was a nut bar with a few good ideas" he was pointing out you can't say "Jesus was a good moral teacher but not divine".





I think Rabbi Hillel came up with the Golden Rule a few decades before Christ. And Jesus' mood swings aren't any worse than the mood swings God has in the Old Testament.



The difference between say, Plato or Confucious or Kant and Jesus is that Jesus spent most of his time talking about how he was God and that he was the only path to salvation. Like I wrote a little earlier, you can't call Christ a good moral teacher but say he was not divine. You could say he is nuts but had a couple of good ideas, but that's as far as you can really get.

Good point. He was nuts and had a couple of good ideas.

More importantly, he was actually successful in convincing others of his craziness...

from a outsiders point of view, the man was clearly morally reprehensible, with a plan to get untold numbers of people long after his death, worshipping him as the one divine path to salvation, not only wasting their time, but locking their moral view points in an arbitary fashion.

it's difficult to imagine jesus been as bad as the names you mentioned... but truly, he might be worse; after all those people had followers that really believed in them, but are seen as bad manipulative and delusional people to outsiders (fair enough, considering they provide no material evidence or logic to their claims).

 

[Fatghost]

The Koran does not conflict with the Gospel, but it does conflict with the modern day Bible, because people wrote it and re-wrote it to fit their political needs.

The text of the Bible hasn't changed at all. That is, the words and the message has not changed.

The canon of the Bible has changed several times: that is, which books of the Bible have been included and which have not. Even today, the Catholic Church has a slightly different canon than most Protestant churches.

The Gospel and Torah are seen as true books of God in the eyes of Muslims, whereas the current day Bible is seen as something watered down, changed, and corrupt compilation...which it is, no one can deny that.

Christians of all denominations would absolutely, catagorically deny that and have tremendous archeological evidence to back them up in this regard.

The current day Bible was largely written by people hundreds of years after Jesus's time. Many of it's teachings are influenced by other cultures.

The Bible is a collection of books that date back from thousands of years before Christ, to the Gospels written around 30-50 years after the Crucifixion, to the letters of Paul written at about the same time (or even a little earlier).

Whether or not Christianity is influenced by earlier cultures isn't really an issue, is it? Islam is clearly influenced by other cultures as well (Muhammed obviously was influenced by his conceptions of Christianity and Judaism).

The idea of Jesus being the son of God wasn't found in any of the teachings of the earlier prophets either.

Are you sure? http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/preview.htm

The idea of him being a "Son of God" and the Trinity probably came about as a result of trying to make Christianity more compatible with Roman beliefs. Scratch the word "probably".

How would the Trinity be more compatible with Roman beliefs? Many Romans were more than happy to include Jesus and Yahweh in their pantheon...it was the Jews and later the Christians who claimed that their god was the []only[/i] God that angered the Romans.

 

[Fatghost]

Good point. He was nuts and had a couple of good ideas.

More importantly, he was actually successful in convincing others of his craziness...

from a outsiders point of view, the man was clearly morally reprehensible, with a plan to get untold numbers of people long after his death, worshipping him as the one divine path to salvation, not only wasting their time, but locking their moral view points in an arbitary fashion.

it's difficult to imagine jesus been as bad as the names you mentioned... but truly, he might be worse; after all those people had followers that really believed in them, but are seen as bad manipulative and delusional people to outsiders (fair enough, considering they provide no material evidence or logic to their claims).

That's CS Lewis' point. If Jesus isn't God, he's not a moral reasonable good teacher.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Umm, yes, we can, and we do deny that.



"Hundreds"? Umm, no.

Ahem....

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

This page goes very in depth about the changes which were made to the Torah and the New Testament over time.

You should take a look at it.

 

[FightyF]

Umm, yes, we can, and we do deny that.

You are free to deny it, just as anyone is free to deny that the World is round. There is too much evidence showing that it is the case that it has been changed and served political purposes through it's changes.

Feel free to debate the evidence as well. Do keep in mind that the evidence is overwhelming, and you'd be spending a lot of time researching them first.

"Hundreds"? Umm, no.

200 years to be exact. How many Gospels were written 200 years after, was it 2 or 3?

Christians of all denominations would absolutely, catagorically deny that and have tremendous archeological evidence to back them up in this regard.

Of course they would deny it. Their very religion is based on it.

The Bible is a collection of books that date back from thousands of years before Christ, to the Gospels written around 30-50 years after the Crucifixion, to the letters of Paul written at about the same time (or even a little earlier).

Q also includes books written hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

Whether or not Christianity is influenced by earlier cultures isn't really an issue, is it? Islam is clearly influenced by other cultures as well (Muhammed obviously was influenced by his conceptions of Christianity and Judaism).

His conceptions came from God, as Jesus's and all the prophets before them had direct revelation from God.
The concern here is changing Holy Text to suite political beliefs, which has happened to the Bible, very clearly, in a few cases.

Oh, and to clarify, I meant the earlier prophets never mentioned the concept of Salvation. Which means everyone born before Jesus' time will go to Hell, right?

Anyways, this is the last post on this topic. If you'd like to discuss theology further we can do it over PMs. What we are discussing is in reality not as important as the events that have recently transpired and come to surface at Gitmo.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The text of the Bible hasn't changed at all. That is, the words and the message has not changed.

The canon of the Bible has changed several times: that is, which books of the Bible have been included and which have not. Even today, the Catholic Church has a slightly different canon than most Protestant churches.



Christians of all denominations would absolutely, catagorically deny that and have tremendous archeological evidence to back them up in this regard.



The Bible is a collection of books that date back from thousands of years before Christ, to the Gospels written around 30-50 years after the Crucifixion, to the letters of Paul written at about the same time (or even a little earlier).

Whether or not Christianity is influenced by earlier cultures isn't really an issue, is it? Islam is clearly influenced by other cultures as well (Muhammed obviously was influenced by his conceptions of Christianity and Judaism).



Are you sure? http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/preview.htm



How would the Trinity be more compatible with Roman beliefs? Many Romans were more than happy to include Jesus and Yahweh in their pantheon...it was the Jews and later the Christians who claimed that their god was the []only[/i] God that angered the Romans.

Actually, the romans didn't really get upset with the Jews until Jesus began stirring up trouble.

 

[Boogie]

Ahem....

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

This page goes very in depth about the changes which were made to the Tanach (Jewish Bible) and the New Testament over time.

You should take a look at it.

Ahem back at you. I'm mostly concerned with the new Testament at the moment, as per the discussion. And I'm afraid I don't have time to check out that link, because I'm about to head off to work (night shifts)

Nonetheless, I contribute this link to the discussion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

This is not a Christian site. In fact, it takes a generally skeptical voice towards conservative Christians. Nonetheless, it establishes that nearly all scholar date the majority of the New Testament to within 80 years of Christ's death, not "hundreds" which FFF claimed.

And considering the early manuscripts that we have access to, I think it quite laughable to call the modern Bible a "watered down, changed, and corrupt compilation", which "no one can deny". There's room for argument, certainly, but it's not so cut, dry and concluded as FFF attempts to pass it off as.

 

[Boogie]

Actually, the romans didn't really get upset with the Jews until Jesus began stirring up trouble.

Bwahahahaha :lol :lol

Right. The jews were a constant pain in the butt to the Romans. It had nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Ahem back at you. I'm mostly concerned with the new Testament at the moment, as per the discussion. And I'm afraid I don't have time to check out that link, because I'm about to head off to work (night shifts)

Nonetheless, I contribute this link to the discussion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

This is not a Christian site. In fact, it takes a generally skeptical voice towards conservative Christians. Nonetheless, it establishes that nearly all scholar date the majority of the New Testament to within 80 years of Christ's death, not "hundreds" which FFF claimed.

And considering the early manuscripts that we have access to, I think it quite laughable to call the modern Bible a "watered down, changed, and corrupt compilation", which "no one can deny". There's room for argument, certainly, but it's not so cut, dry and concluded as FFF attempts to pass it off as.

Frickin hell, dude, then skip over the stuff about the Torah and just look at the sections of that site about the New Testament. You'll find that he's right. :/

 

[Boogie]

200 years to be exact. How many Gospels were written 200 years after, was it 2 or 3?

.

None of the four in the Bible. Read my link. Anyhow, I'm off to work.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Bwahahahaha :lol :lol

Right. The jews were a constant pain in the butt to the Romans. It had nothing to do with Jesus.

Dude, the Jews were forced into captivity, but they were allowed to do as they please in rome when it came to practicing their religion Rome became pretty pissed with the jews after Jesus became huge because many, many, many of Jesus' followers were Jewish, and Jesus himself was a rabbi.

 

[Boogie]

Frickin hell, dude, then skip over the stuff about the Torah and just look at the sections of that site about the New Testament. You'll find that he's right. :/

Don't get all pissy at me for skipping it, what part of "I have to go to work" don't you understand?

Skimmed it quickly, didn't seem particularly impressive. Doesn't seem to be anything I haven't read before, at least.

 

[FightyF]

I'll just mentioned that I did study the Bible at Prairie Hills Bible School, on of the largest in Western Canada. Why is it that these people are these Bible Schools pass it off as fact to me, while I'm getting debated by some casual readers of it? :lol

Go to work bro, there is absolutely no need to try to debate this issue. There are bigger and more important questions regarding faith that you need to have answered first.

 

[Boogie]

Dude, the Jews were forced into captivity, but they were allowed to do as they please in rome when it came to practicing their religion Rome became pretty pissed with the jews after Jesus became huge because many, many, many of Jesus' followers were Jewish, and Jesus himself was a rabbi.

You know, you seem to strike me a fairly smart kid who relies too much on a half-baked knowledge of history and his own arguments than actual research.

Bottom line: your history sucks, but I don't have the time to go link searching about how general jewish uprising against Rome didn't have much to do with Jesus and his followers. Cheers

 

[GaimeGuy]

You know, you seem to strike me a fairly smart kid who relies too much on a half-baked knowledge of history and his own arguments than actual research.

Bottom line: your history sucks, but I don't have the time to go link searching about how general jewish uprising against Rome didn't have much to do with Jesus and his followers. Cheers

Maybe I'm thinking of Jews in Persia or something. It's been a few months since I last discussed this topic. :lol

 

[Nerevar]

Right. The jews were a constant pain in the butt to the Romans. It had nothing to do with Jesus.

seriously - historical evidence (from the secular historian Flavius Josephus) paints Pontius Pilate as one of the most brutal and repressive Roman governors in all of the ancient world. Which of course directly contradicts the watered-down, nice-guy image they gave Pontius Pilate in the Bible itself (this is a guy who actively used his soldiers to physically assault Jewish citizens to quell riots, among other things). IIRC, Pilate was recalled to Rome to be held accountable for his actions, but the emperor died before he made it back.

And while modern Christians pretty much have to accept the divine nature of Christ, it's pretty commonly believed that this was not a prerequisite for ancient, Roman-era Christians. It might be the most important part of doctrine now, but it apparently wasn't back in the ancient era.

 

[Fatghost]

You are free to deny it, just as anyone is free to deny that the World is round. There is too much evidence showing that it is the case that it has been changed and served political purposes through it's changes.

Feel free to debate the evidence as well. Do keep in mind that the evidence is overwhelming, and you'd be spending a lot of time researching them first.

Again. there is lots of evidence that the canon has changed, but do you have any evidence that the text has changed?

200 years to be exact. How many Gospels were written 200 years after, was it 2 or 3?

None of the Gospels were written that late.

Mark was probably the earliest and was likely written around 70 AD.
John was the latest and was likely written before 150 AD.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Another site (a Skeptical one at that) also figures on the ~70 AD date for Mark.

http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

A good book on the general subject is "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

Q also includes books written hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

Huh? The Gospel of Q is from much earlier than that (if it exists).

His conceptions came from God, as Jesus's and all the prophets before them had direct revelation from God.

Well, only Muslims believe that. Christians don't believe God had anything to do with Muhammed at all.

The concern here is changing Holy Text to suite political beliefs, which has happened to the Bible, very clearly, in a few cases.

Again, show us where the Text has changed, and not just the canon (which books are included or excluded).

Oh, and to clarify, I meant the earlier prophets never mentioned the concept of Salvation.

Isaiah was pretty clear about this:

Isaiah 53:4-5 "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Which means everyone born before Jesus' time will go to Hell, right?

That's a different topic altogether.

 

[Nerevar]

Again. there is lots of evidence that the canon has changed, but do you have any evidence that the text has changed?

What about the evidence that one of the gospels (John?) was scribed by at least two different people (most likely people that had no direct first-hand knowledge of the events they were writing about)? Doesn't that call into question the very nature and accuracy of the sources that you draw material from?

 

[Fatghost]

What about the evidence that one of the gospels (John?) was scribed by at least two different people (most likely people that had no direct first-hand knowledge of the events they were writing about)? Doesn't that call into question the very nature and accuracy of the sources that you draw material from?

Oh, that's a different debate

In this case, we're evaluating the claim that the text was changed for political reasons.

The question about authorship is something else. The Torah and the Koran have similar difficulties with regard to authorship.

 

[GaimeGuy]

the link I posted answers all your questions. *poke poke*

 

[Xenon]

First off. It's pretty crazy to me that it's so hard to accept for the non Muslims on this board to accept how untouchable the Quran is held to be, even though every freaking Muslim on the forums has said that it is. Lemme try again. Violating the Quran is really as bad as burning a church down (empty).

More like pissing on a church =) I think its hard for us non Muslims to except anything as untouchable because we live in a society that has had its boundaries constantly tested. I'm sure if you pissed on a Christians bible 100 years ago you would get a much different reaction than you would today. I still think the act is disrespectful not because it is the word of god, but because it is valued as such by people of that faith. However, if someone gave me one, I would treat it no different than any other book because to me that's all that it is. Nothing you could say to me would ever change that.

Secondly. What the hell happened to the Bush administrations vow that they would reach out to the Muslim world? Dammit but they're justifying everything the extremists have said. It doesn't matter how dumb or feeble minded you consider the respect for the Quran to be, the point is that if you want to reach out to Muslims YOU DO NOT ABUSE THE QURAN. Anybody who knows anything about the religion could have told you that. Idjits.

They had rules in place that were broken. You make it sound like Bush is the one who pissed on the thing or ordered it to be done. These people wouldn't even have a Qu'ran if the US didn't provide them it.

This is the best fucking thing Bin Laden and his ilk could have hoped for and it's sad that you guys don't recognize that.

No, that would people stupid enough to take this as a call to action. It's a close second though.

 

[Azih]

More like pissing on a church =)

No, burning it. I'm trying to get across to you the gravity of the situation.

I think its hard for us non Muslims to except anything as untouchable because we live in a society that has had its boundaries constantly tested.

Which is why I gave the analogy that I did. Someone burning a church would get you a much stronger reaction then someone burning down a supermarket wouldn't it? Well apply the same feeling to urinating on the Quran.

However, if someone gave me one, I would treat it no different than any other book because to me that's all that it is. Nothing you could say to me would ever change that.

I'm not *asking* you to change that, what I'm asking you to respect that it's different for muslims, I and others have given you the reasons why it's as important as it is and if you can't understand them then what I'm asking for is merely a bit of cross-cultural empathy here.

They had rules in place that were broken. You make it sound like Bush is the one who pissed on the thing or ordered it to be done.

Despite what this administration seems to think the buck stops at the top. They've completely failed to enforce their own rules and failed to provide their ground level operatives with the training that they obviously desperately require in dealing with muslim prisoners. Now they have the responsibility to (belatedly) do so and further dishonourably discharge the soliders who carried out these acts. Demoting and reprimanding the person in charge of prison facilities would be far too much to hope for from this administration.

No, that would people stupid enough to take this as a call to action.

:shrug: stupid or not that's the reality of the situation. The ramifications of these actions are pretty significant. It will push some in the muslim world who are sympahtetic to the west into suspicious moderation and push some who were suspicous moderates into sympathy with those who outright hate it. Of course the haters will only be confirmed and justified in their hate and will have extra ammunition in their arguments. It will also rob the arguments of those who say that the West isn't conducting a full scale war on Islam. The diplomatic front (haw) in the war on terror hasn't just been lost, it's turned into a full scale rout.

*This* is what this administration should have realised as if it had it would have *impressed* on the soliders and guards that such actions would not be tolerated and would in fact be met with severe consequences. I do not believe that this happened.

 

[Zaptruder]

No, burning it. I'm trying to get across to you the gravity of the situation. Which is why I gave the analogy that I did. Someone burning a church would get you a much stronger reaction then someone burning down a supermarket wouldn't it? Well apply the same feeling to urinating on the Quran.

What would burning down a mosque be like? Flying planes into a couple of the tallest buildings in the nation?

 

[Macam]

Much as I'd love to create a new thread to sidestep this extended misguided tangential discussion, it belongs here. Here's a video clip of Matt Drudge on Hannity & Colmes on Fox doing a blatant spin off the "Left" who apparently are cheering this report -- only to get shot down succintly and quickly by Colmes. I can't actually believe this is on Fox or on this show, but I'm happy to see it:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/04.html#a3275

I can only hope other news outlets report the story for what it is, but I don't have much faith. I can't believe I just referred to Fox as a news outlet...:: shudder ::

 

[pwn3d]

Again. there is lots of evidence that the canon has changed, but do you have any evidence that the text has changed?

Most of what you posted with respect to manuscript dating looks right but this point is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. First, there are a couple of obvious examples of changes to the NT text, such as the longer ending to Mark or the passage about the adulteress in John. I don't have access to my books at the moment but I know that Helmut Koester, for example, argues that most of the changes to the NT text occurred during the first few decades of its transmission.

Christians of all denominations would absolutely, catagorically deny that and have tremendous archeological evidence to back them up in this regard.

Again I don't have access to my books but I can cite a few examples where the Bible conflicts seriously with archaeology off the top of my head. For instance, the Exodus-Conquest cycle is not considered to be factually accurate history by archaeologists. William Dever, a professor of archaeology at Arizona State, discusses this at length in "Who Were the Early Isrealites and Where did They Come From?"; as an example, the Isrealites were supposed to have encamped at Kadesh-Barnea for 40 years, but the site has been extensively excavated and there is no evidence of any occupation during the time period when most biblical scholars place the event. Some scholars, such as Baruch Halpern, believe the story has some historical basis but is heavily mythologized. I can also think of a few issues in the NT as well. The stories of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't match - Matthew places his birth before Herod's death, which was in 4 BC, and Luke places it at Quirinius' census, which was in 6AD. Some evangelical apologists have tried to get around this by speculating that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, but their sources are extremely out of date from what I remember. There is still a problem with the passage, since Luke states that the census was of the entire Roman world but there is no record of any such census in the first century. Mark also contains a number of geographical errors, the details of which I don't remember, but you can look them up yourself in Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament.

Anyway I didn't mean to write so much since I didn't want to derail the topic a lot, maybe this would be better in its own topic.

 

[Azih]

What would burning down a mosque be like?

Not quite as bad as urinating on the Quran actually. Close though.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's CS Lewis' point. If Jesus isn't God, he's not a moral reasonable good teacher.

The unspoken follow up to that point is that, since christians seem to be of sound moral character, it follows that Jesus is God.

That, I have a problem with... firstly because my argument, as any logical argument should, differs from Lewis' original argument in that, while the man may be insane, evil or reprehensible on some level, it doesn't follow that all his teachings be insane evil or reprehensible. But that some, especially those with regards to his godhood were.

I mean, just because a man can't do higher maths, doesn't follow that he can't do some maths right? Or even better, it doesn't necessarily follow that a statistician can do advanced calculus.

Moreover, I have to take to task that the idea that becoming a christian (or religious) makes a person a better moral character. In some ways, they may improve, but in other ways, they rescind. If nothing else, some religious people become annoyingly self righteous, without been able to explain how some of their moral principles work outside of the framework of the religion, especially the ones that tend to clash with other belief systems.

 

[Zaptruder]

Not quite as bad as urinating on the Quran actually. Close though.

Oh man, you'll be really mortified to hear about the time I ran outta toilet paper and all I had was my flatmate's quran on hand...

 

[Mandark]

These people wouldn't even have a Qu'ran if the US didn't provide them it.

I'm pretty sure that if you took the US government out of the equation, these people would have their own copies.

The main point here is that the potency of offensive symbolism is determined entirely by the person being offended. There is no objective standard that can be applied. There can be an argument about what would constitute a reasonable level of outrage, but people outside the wronged community are emphatically not invited.

Azih says that this is deeply taboo. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I'm not concerned about other people or other cultures having different sore spots than I do. I'm concerned with my government needlessly creating a situation that repeatedly pisses off hundreds of millions of people, one of whom may one day explode me into many small pieces.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

If someone defaced a Holy Bible it wouldn't be newsworthy. I don't see how this is any different.

 

[Mandark]

Think hard. The answer will come.

 

[Panajev2001a]

You're so right! I'm glad you were able to clear that up. We'll just explain it nicely to the 1 billion+ muslims in the world. I'm sure they'll understand.

If people get worked up and start riots more for disrespecting a book more than they do for physical torture then they either understand or enter in the circle of "cannot understand, I still have me mind in Medieval times".

 

[Triumph]

If people get worked up and start riots for disrepsecting a book more than they do about physical torture then they either understand or enter in the circle of "cannot understand, I still have me mind in Medieval times".

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. For most Muslims, disrespecting the Quran is worse than beating a fellow Muslim in front of you.

 

[karasu]

If someone defaced a Holy Bible it wouldn't be newsworthy. I don't see how this is any different.

If it wasn't offensive, they wouldn't have done it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. For most Muslims, disrespecting the Quran is worse than beating a fellow Muslim in front of you.

Obviously, you cannot read then. I am saying that such a way of thinking is greatly antiquated not to say completely off-focus on what should be more important. I do not believe in idolizing an object, be it a book, a picture, a cross or something similar and I was raised a Roman Catholic, but still I do not believe such a thing could or should make sense.

The sense of Human Empathy cannot be kept way under the respect for a physical object, a collection of sheets of paper (on which there might be written something important, but it i not like everyone is trying to erase it from history this way) in the importance ladder. I feel like debating why the Grand Canyon and the Great Flood have no correlations: I am sorry if you get offended by my not buying that theory, but it still does not make any Scientific or Philosophical sense.

It is a cultural war that is brewing: I am not going to look for an argument by pissing on the Quran, but I do not think the West or the East should surrender their culture to go back to a state we have already been in and fortunately evolved away from it (those were our dark years).

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm pretty sure that if you took the US government out of the equation, these people would have their own copies.

The main point here is that the potency of offensive symbolism is determined entirely by the person being offended. There is no objective standard that can be applied. There can be an argument about what would constitute a reasonable level of outrage, but people outside the wronged community are emphatically not invited.

Azih says that this is deeply taboo. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I'm not concerned about other people or other cultures having different sore spots than I do. I'm concerned with my government needlessly creating a situation that repeatedly pisses off hundreds of millions of people, one of whom may one day explode me into many small pieces.

Well if you really want to talk about hypotheticals... then wouldn't it better if the media exercised some amount of control over what they reported? They may have a duty to report the truth, but at the same time, they kid themselves if they think some of the news they report won't bring about serious negative consequences.
It would be one thing if the media reported everything equally and fairly, but obviously there's not enough time for that... moreover, it has in the past been shown that some topics do have media blackout... so why can't discretion be exercised...

so that the effect is ultimately, the intended targets are offended/broken, while the collateral effect is reduced or minimized as the reports aren't revealed or rather broadcasted to the general public.

Of course there would be an issue with the rights of the targets and what not, but that's another issue in and of itself.

 

[Mandark]

It goes without saying that the government would have fewer difficulties enacting a wide range of policies if only the public were never told about them.

For some reason, though, I don't think this is the best idea.

 

[Zaptruder]

It goes without saying that the government would have fewer difficulties enacting a wide range of policies if only the public were never told about them.

For some reason, though, I don't think this is the best idea.

And what if all things were revealed?

Not even that, but although I don't condone the keeping of secrets, I do believe the media has a responsibility in what it focuses on. The information maybe freely revealed to those inquisitive, but when the media focuses on something, it becomes an issue that is over magnified. People that normally don't care about the issue have their say, and due to the fact they normally don't care, typically get what they're saying wrong.
But often they're just as loud about what they say... and more importantly do.

The ideals in this situation are the integrity of the news, and the duty to report it.

But the cost is increasing reasons for prejudice among different communities. At some point, this kind of stuff, it has to be looked at carefully.

The compromise should be to let this information out, but not necessarily making it headlining news, that would attract the attention of the slow witted and the easily biased.

 

[Instigator]

The gospels were written only a few decades after Jesus' death. If people who actually knew Jesus were willing to be (and often were) killed for saying Jesus was God, why would they lie about it?

Irrelevant. After Jesus died, everything changed. Despite claims of the contrary, I don't get the feeling Jesus was supposed to go. Jesus only had a dozen of core followers in his lifetime. He died. The followers were left alone and had to make sense of it all. This was when Christianity was really formed.

The destruction of the Jerusalem temple, back when Christians were not a separate entity from Judaism, was another traumatic event.

And Jesus likely didn't die because he said he was (the Son of) God, he most likely caught the attention of the temple priests after he ransacked the place. He was a trouble maker in their eyes. He may or may not have been further prosecuted by the Romans for being king of the Jews or Son of God, he was still a challenge of Rome's authority anyway, a disturber of the fragile peace under Roman occupation.

 

[Fatghost]

Most of what you posted with respect to manuscript dating looks right but this point is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. First, there are a couple of obvious examples of changes to the NT text, such as the longer ending to Mark or the passage about the adulteress in John. I don't have access to my books at the moment but I know that Helmut Koester, for example, argues that most of the changes to the NT text occurred during the first few decades of its transmission.



Again I don't have access to my books but I can cite a few examples where the Bible conflicts seriously with archaeology off the top of my head. For instance, the Exodus-Conquest cycle is not considered to be factually accurate history by archaeologists. William Dever, a professor of archaeology at Arizona State, discusses this at length in "Who Were the Early Isrealites and Where did They Come From?"; as an example, the Isrealites were supposed to have encamped at Kadesh-Barnea for 40 years, but the site has been extensively excavated and there is no evidence of any occupation during the time period when most biblical scholars place the event. Some scholars, such as Baruch Halpern, believe the story has some historical basis but is heavily mythologized. I can also think of a few issues in the NT as well. The stories of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke don't match - Matthew places his birth before Herod's death, which was in 4 BC, and Luke places it at Quirinius' census, which was in 6AD. Some evangelical apologists have tried to get around this by speculating that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, but their sources are extremely out of date from what I remember. There is still a problem with the passage, since Luke states that the census was of the entire Roman world but there is no record of any such census in the first century. Mark also contains a number of geographical errors, the details of which I don't remember, but you can look them up yourself in Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament.

Anyway I didn't mean to write so much since I didn't want to derail the topic a lot, maybe this would be better in its own topic.

The evidence is that the text hasn't changed, not that the text is true.

 

[m0dus]

A buncha stuff .

Hey fat. Just wanted to chime in a couple things (didn't really feel like sifting through this fast growing thread. Just want to establish a few things for you that you didn't seem to know on page one, just in case they are points that haven't been raised

1) Muslims believe in Jesus. It is said a person cannot be muslim unless the acknowledge and cherish Jesus and his teachings. they believe in the miracle of his birth. They do not believe he was God's begotten son, or that it was him who ended up being crucified (they speak of his 'ascension' rather than his crucifixion). The rejection of the trinity can be explained because Islam holds to the highest power the notion of the oneness of God (IE, no one may be associated with God or God's power, and the notion that god is more than one thus dilutes or associates his power with others).

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are indeed compatible as religions go. In the end, they all believe in the same God, albeit throught different paths. Something, I think, the Catholic Church acknowledged some time ago -- that the many faiths on earth represent many paths to the same God? There is an old saying: If God had wished their to be one faith and one tribe, then he would have created only one faith and one tribe.

2) This is for Pana: The Qu'ran, as a book, existed earlier (in Muhammud's time) in verbal form only, and was compiled and written in his lifetime. It is considered, by Muslims, to be the complete word of God. Defiling it, symbolically and literally, defiles the very ideals that 1 billion+ people base their faiths on. Not smart if you want to salvage our country's already tarnished image in the Muslim world. News like this is very bad, IMO, because it solidifies the beliefs of the fanatic few that the US is trying to start a war with the religion itself. And besides, it's not like they weren't ALREADY pissed off at the US for Guantanamo and Iraq.

3) Fat, Would you not agree, I'm curious, that the bible has been changed, or rather exists in many forms? From, say, the King James version (altering the grounds for divorce a number of times?) to now the Reader's Digest version. One could say it is literally impossible to translate a holy text from its original tongue without, invariably, changing its meaning in some way. For instance, from what I have read, it was not uncommon for punctuation to be changed, letters changed, and the entire meaning of certain words changed ("Good" to "God')It is for this reason, as I understand it, every translation of the Quran (and possibly the Torah) must be accompanied by the original Arabic (and hebrew?) texts (respectively). I do not say this to diminish the bible in any way, but rather to offer a different perspective on what constitutes revision. I don't consider myself a bible scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know I WAS taught to understand it, understand why Islam differs in its view of events otherwise shared between the two books. I was also taught, above all, to respect it, as well as to respect the Torah/Talmud.

 

[Instigator]

There is an old saying: If God had wished their to be one faith and one tribe, then he would have created only one faith and one tribe.

That's what he did with Judaism.