Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[Kulindahr]

Facile analogy. Picking and choosing a narrative to make sense of the world, or a particular Faith as a way to live your life, is NOT the same as the laws of physics or science which cannot be ignored. And you're not stupid enough not to know the difference.

To hold that is to hold that there's nothing true in any Faith at all. Truth is truth, whether scientific or otherwise, and it's a fabric, not a shopping list.

If anything, science should be held to a lower standard, since it's just investigation, as opposed to a Faith, which claims real answers.

 

[EwanSF]

Freedom requires the possibility of failure, or it isn't freedom.
There was no "need" for any years of human suffering, but it had to be a possibility for us to be much more than fancifully programmed toys.

Why would we be automatons if we hadn't went through the horrors of that cosmic sadists design first? If he is perfect, as the bible asserts, then why didn't he make his creation so. Why did he fill it with things that piss him off, with a prior knowlege that they would do so?

By the way, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not doing this in agressive manner. I think you're the only gay christian that hasn't propperly pissed me off.

 

[falconfan]

Excuse me, but the Gospels were written and finished before the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D., while people (thousands of them) who had actually heard Jesus were still around to object -- and they did object to fiction, which is why so many early "gospels" were thrown out.

Wow do you have any idea what you're talking about? The exact origins of the gospels are never going to be known with any degree of certainty. What is a fact is that for centuries the Catholic church, which at this time was indisputably a imperialistic entity that drew it's power from it's ability to speak for God, had that book under lock and key and during this time they could've added or subtracted anything they wanted and we will never know.

Moreover, to this day there are documents locked away in the Vatican that no one is allowed to see. It's not just a case of we don't believe this so we're not adding it to our holy book, a case of blatant censorship. It's a case of we don't want anyone to read this so we're going to hide it far enough away it'll never be found.

So when you ask yourself why it is the Gospel of Thomas, an apostle, is excluded and that of Luke, an apostle's disciple, is included consider that it might just have something to do with the fact Thomas claimed Christianity didn't necessitate an official

There's a science called textual criticism, and one of the things it does is look for evidence of editing. What it finds in the Gospels is sources that are almost certainly words known by people who heard Jesus, and kept them in memory by repeating them. So what we have in the Gospels is an account either by or based on eye witnesses.

There's no evidence of later "paring down" or anything else, and if you knew church history you'd realize that the New Testament is anything but what an authoritarian structure would fashion selectively. As for translating, that's generally done once -- from the Greek, from texts that date almost certainly back to before 60 A.D. in the cases of Matthew and Mark, and not much later for Luke, and then John in latest some little bit before 70.

A) That is not a "science." Please don't refer to it as such. Criticism innately requires a certain degree of judgment and opinion that is far more lax than that of science.

B) That first thing you said just doesn't make sense... at all. You can't just say that entire gospel is valid just because it contain certain passages that indicate they witnessed Jesus's acts (or even better heard them when they were repeated "over and over"... like you know folk lore or telephone). So rather than getting into the many, many ways this meaningless statement is completely illogical I'm going to point out the primary one in that writings of people who actually encountered Jesus, apostles even, are tossed out when the records of those who had clearly lesser relationships are deemed Biblical

Jesus made a whip out of tie-straps for animal cages in the Temple, and whipped out the money-changers. Later, he ordered his followers to buy swords. Those are not the actions of a pacifist. In addition, he was very judgmental -- ever actually read what He had to say? Further, Paul admonishes that believers are to "judge all things", as a duty.

It's nice to speak of "taking up that cross", but it would be nicer of you knew what you were talking about when you said it.

Oh trust me I know EXACTLY what taking up a cross is. I know that it is living with the pain and suffering of pacifism and not shurking the responisibility with attempts to justify the easier yet harmful human reactions of rage and violence. You see Christianity is not suppose to be easy. It's suppose to be a burden... because nonviolence and nonjudgement are difficult. It's easier to try and convince ourselves that what want to do is what we should do and what we want to think is what we should think. But's it's not and that's why we suffer under the burden of the metaphorical cross did just as Christ himself did.

Jesus was both man and divine according to Christian scriptures. He was not free from human impulses, but he ultimately overcame them. As for the incident with the moneychangers, Jesus never "whipped" anyone. He "drove" them out of the temple and overturned tables. My reading of these texts has always been that in a fit of anger and weakness, threw a fit and scared them away. And how can you speak of Jesus's telling them to buy swords as a sign of non-pacifism when Jesus later scolds Peter for using that very weapon.

One thing is very clear and that's that the one act we most admire Christ for, the one act which makes him so ultimately sacred to us, is the one in which he, fully knowing he had done no wrong, being fully capable of striking out and remaining free, knowing there was a traitor amongst his midst, still sacraficed himself freely and openly and in doing so felt nothing but compassion for the very people who were murdering him. The fact that in over 20 years the man had one human act of human violence does nothing to counter-act years of teaching and the ultimate sacrafice he made.

It might be easier to say Jesus had moments of weakness so it's OK to give into mine but this you and I know full well that this is NOT what he preached. He very clearly, very regularly, and very loudly proclaimed the virtues of non-violence and in the ultimate of such gave his life, an act which requires a degree of strenght that we, being fully human, can never hope to achieve and yet should never stop trying to.

So I know very well what it means to carry my cross. It means that no matter what people say, no matter people, no matter what people think, I as Christian should attempt to see things from their perspective and should never revert to acts which harm other people.

 

[falconfan]

Wrong. They're showing they're not hypocrites.

Here's the way it works:

A) You buy it as it is.

Or

B) You reject it.

Or

C) You're a hypocrite.

D) You define it. You accept that you're an autonomous being with the ability to think and form you're own opinions. That life isn't just choose between a binary but realizing that long held schools of thought can be right about some aspects and wrong about others and therefor if you wish to be right you can believe those that are supported by logic and fact and reject those that are not. That's what us independent thinking adults do.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why would we be automatons if we hadn't went through the horrors of that cosmic sadists design first? If he is perfect, as the bible asserts, then why didn't he make his creation so. Why did he fill it with things that piss him off, with a prior knowlege that they would do so?

By the way, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not doing this in agressive manner. I think you're the only gay christian that hasn't propperly pissed me off.

According to the Bible, none of the horrors were of His design: he called a universe into being, placed us in charge of this little corner, and we blew it -- at which point things rather went to pieces. Think of it as a father building a house for his kids, on a beautiful ranch, and the first thing they do is let a burning log roll out of the fireplace, and the whole place burns down, the fire spreads to the ranch, and they're stuck living there -- except that in screwing up so badly, they made it necessary that they be fixed first, before the ranch and house could be.

A common mistake about God and Creation in the Christian view is to think that the way we see the universe is the way it was made. The truth of what the Bible has to say is almost a paradox: that while God made this universe, this universe is not the one God made. In other words, in order for us to not be fancily programmed toys, the possibility of failure had to be real... and we did this to ourselves.

From there, the entire Old Testament is the record of God setting up the conditions for the rescue operation, in the midst of a Creation gone awry.

You're also getting into an old, old question, namely, Did God's foreknowledge of happenings in the universe apply before there was a universe? Another way of asking that is, could God see foreward in time before there was time to see forward in?

I can argue both sides, though it helps if I'm a few beers to the wind.

 

[EwanSF]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a life can be based on, being as they are, the words of a man, well those that were included, that amount to a little more than a half-hour of dialogue. That's it. An audience with billy Connolly was longer (and frankly more useful,) than that pish.

 

[EwanSF]

According to the Bible, none of the horrors were of His design: he called a universe into being, placed us in charge of this little corner, and we blew it -- at which point things rather went to pieces. Think of it as a father building a house for his kids, on a beautiful ranch, and the first thing they do is let a burning log roll out of the fireplace, and the whole place burns down, the fire spreads to the ranch, and they're stuck living there -- except that in screwing up so badly, they made it necessary that they be fixed first, before the ranch and house could be.

A common mistake about God and Creation in the Christian view is to think that the way we see the universe is the way it was made. The truth of what the Bible has to say is almost a paradox: that while God made this universe, this universe is not the one God made. In other words, in order for us to not be fancily programmed toys, the possibility of failure had to be real... and we did this to ourselves.

From there, the entire Old Testament is the record of God setting up the conditions for the rescue operation, in the midst of a Creation gone awry.

You're also getting into an old, old question, namely, Did God's foreknowledge of happenings in the universe apply before there was a universe? Another way of asking that is, could God see foreward in time before there was time to see forward in?

I can argue both sides, though it helps if I'm a few beers to the wind.

No no no no no! Don't give us that fucking nonsense. If god has a devine plan then he knew full-well what would happen. In which case, he created us, one by one, for the express reason of watching us sufffer. There we go with the logical backflips. How could an all knowing being, know that things would fuck up, to the extent of his displeasure, but still orchastrate them so that they happened that way? And the koran is schizoid?!?!

 

[andysayshi]

 

[falconfan]

I don't know why you're laughing at falconfan. This is still a point of debate today among scholars, however much you try to erroneously present your personal beliefs as "facts." Conservatives usually place the writing of the synoptic gospels before the fall of Jerusalem, while Liberal Christians place the writing of the three other synoptic gospels after the fall of Jerusalem. But most Christian scholars agree that the Apocalypse of John and the Gospel of John were written at least a decade after the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD).

Why thank you dear. It's great to have such a learned and sexy man coming to my defense.

 

[TX-Beau]

Perhaps I shouldn’t be posting due to the amount of whisky I’ve imbibed, but I couldn’t help notice this discussion of truth.

First off define truth. If it’s your feelings and convictions, and belief in anthropomorphic impossibly improbable masters of the universe, that’s not truth, that’s faith, and while I have no doubt that the faithful think it’s truth, it’s really just how they feel.

The battle between faith and reason.

Truth is defined in my book as something that’s actually testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. I know that the process of science has truth because it works for me, you, the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese, the Hindus, and everyone else, and if you want to argue that, well you’re already wrong because you’re sitting there on your computer, typing up responses on the internet. The scientific method produces a million miracles every day in all aspects of our lives. There’s truth, your TV works, your car works, your computer works, and none of that requires faith, unless of course you own a crappy car.

Those of you who argue that there is some kind of truth in whatever religion you practice, well, I feel for you, but that’s faith, and while you think it’s truth, no amount of faith has ever powered my cell phone.

Call it what it is, theology, and stop billing it as truth until you’ve got some kind of concrete results – and no, other people agreeing doesn’t will into existence a single virgin birth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow do you have any idea what you're talking about? The exact origins of the gospels are never going to be known with any degree of certainty. What is a fact is that for centuries the Catholic church, which at this time was indisputably a imperialistic entity that drew it's power from it's ability to speak for God, had that book under lock and key and during this time they could've added or subtracted anything they wanted and we will never know.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about -- I took a course in the canonization of the New Testament, at thousands of pages per week for ten weeks.

The Catholic church never, ever had the Bible "under lock and key". In the early decades the documents circulated freely, a process referred to in Paul's writings and in several early church Fathers. Copies were spread across, and beyond, the Roman Empire long before there was any hierarchy capable of collecting, let alone editing. The content of the canon was settled for the most part before there was a hierarchy to even make pronouncements concerning it; what the hierarchy faced was a situation where the Christian community had already communally decided what was in and what was out, and there was little they could do to influence it.

Mark at the least was finished before there was much of any formal hierarchy; by the time Matthew was finished, bishops still presided only over their own cities, as also with Luke. By the time John was set down, there were bishops who stood above other bishops, primarily in large cities where one bishop just couldn't do the work, and rather than have "under-bishops" with less prestige than others with smaller flocks, there came to be "over-bishops" who were essentially both pastors to the bishops and administrators coordinating the affairs of a number of churches/flocks.

Moreover, to this day there are documents locked away in the Vatican that no one is allowed to see. It's not just a case of we don't believe this so we're not adding it to our holy book, a case of blatant censorship. It's a case of we don't want anyone to read this so we're going to hide it far enough away it'll never be found.

True, but not relevant -- unless you're claiming that they actually have copies of the Gospels predating about 60 A.D.

So when you ask yourself why it is the Gospel of Thomas, an apostle, is excluded and that of Luke, an apostle's disciple, is included consider that it might just have something to do with the fact Thomas claimed Christianity didn't necessitate an official

Because it probably wasn't even by Thomas, something that would have been known at the time, and because what Luke wrote was considered "Paul's Gospel", since Luke as companion to Paul got his information to a great extent from that Apostle. That collection of sayings is never mentioned in the early references to "what is read among us", which says it was either a late addition, or not trusted by the community of churches.

B) That first thing you said just doesn't make sense... at all. You can't just say that entire gospel is valid just because it contain certain passages that indicate they witnessed Jesus's acts (or even better heard them when they were repeated "over and over"... like you know folk lore or telephone). So rather than getting into the many, many ways this meaningless statement is completely illogical I'm going to point out the primary one in that writings of people who actually encountered Jesus, apostles even, are tossed out when the records of those who had clearly lesser relationships are deemed Biblical

I didn't say that. What I said was that the Gospels were written when thousands of people who had actually listened to Jesus were still around -- that is, they were set to 'paper' when there were lots of witnesses to call them on any fabrications.

And there weren't any Gospels by apostles that were "tossed out": Peter, Thomas, and the rest were pseudonymous, written late, and judged unworthy not by any hierarchical authority, but by the living community of churches.

Jesus was both man and divine according to Christian scriptures. He was not free from human impulses, but he ultimately overcame them. As for the incident with the moneychangers, Jesus never "whipped" anyone. He "drove" them out of the temple and overturned tables. My reading of these texts has always been that in a fit of anger and weakness, threw a fit and scared them away. And how can you speak of Jesus's telling them to buy swords as a sign of non-pacifism when Jesus later scolds Peter for using that very weapon.

What, you think he made the whip and didn't use it?
Do you know what a cattle-driver did when he "drove" the cattle with his whip? When they got out of line, he whipped them!

As for Jesus' anger, He didn't have any "fit" of anger, He had a deep, focused, disciplined spell of wrath: no one in a "fit" of anger would stand there calmly turning small pieces of cord into a whip before going into action.

You're off-base on Peter and the sword. Jesus wouldn't tell them to buy swords, and then forbid them to use the weapons. He didn't chew Peter out for having a sword or using it, but for the specific use to which Peter put it: essentially, for striking first.

 

[Kulindahr]

No no no no no! Don't give us that fucking nonsense. If god has a devine plan then he knew full-well what would happen. In which case, he created us, one by one, for the express reason of watching us sufffer. There we go with the logical backflips. How could an all knowing being, know that things would fuck up, to the extent of his displeasure, but still orchastrate them so that they happened that way? And the koran is schizoid?!?!

It's not nonsense. You're imposing categories on the Bible that are alien to it. Don't force the Latin philosophical content of the term "omniscient" on the Bible; it doesn't know that term. What it does know is the proposition that God made all things, but then the path He set went awry because the folks He put in charge of what He'd made screwed it up -- and that suggests that the meaning of "all-knowing" isn't, for the Bible, what you're using for it. The Bible's view is much closer to saying that once He turned it on, He knew what would come of Creation, but until He did so, the question of whether man would do well or screw up was an open one (kind of like Schroedinger's cat....).

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO! You are correct of course and this is exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to avoid. Especially with people who are so indoctrinated (either the way they were raised, or too much time in Church, or fed propaganda by some bogus Bible College) that you can't ever present this argument in a truly sensible way to them. I see you noticed the "logical backflips" too. Your answers will not be rewarded with logic, just insensible conjecture. Watch. And not because Kulindahr is stupid, but because Faith cannot hold up to logical scrutiny. That's why it's "Faith."

Bullshit.

You can't address a system of thought by imposing outside concepts -- you get nonsense. The only "logical backflips" involved arise from those trying to impose alien systems of thought on a body of material.

"Insensible conjecture"? I suppose that if a chemist tried to explain to an alchemist why he was wrong, the alchemist would see the explanations as insensible conjecture, because the alchemist would be forcing the statements of the chemist into a framework alien to them. But I make no conjecture, I stand on the body of data presented. If you want to impose an alien body of thought onto the Bible, what you'll be laughing at isn't the Bible, but the ridiculous specters you've conjured up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps I shouldn’t be posting due to the amount of whisky I’ve imbibed, but I couldn’t help notice this discussion of truth.

First off define truth. If it’s your feelings and convictions, and belief in anthropomorphic impossibly improbable masters of the universe, that’s not truth, that’s faith, and while I have no doubt that the faithful think it’s truth, it’s really just how they feel.

The battle between faith and reason.

Truth is defined in my book as something that’s actually testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. I know that the process of science has truth because it works for me, you, the Muslims, the Russians, the Chinese, the Hindus, and everyone else, and if you want to argue that, well you’re already wrong because you’re sitting there on your computer, typing up responses on the internet. The scientific method produces a million miracles every day in all aspects of our lives. There’s truth, your TV works, your car works, your computer works, and none of that requires faith, unless of course you own a crappy car.

Those of you who argue that there is some kind of truth in whatever religion you practice, well, I feel for you, but that’s faith, and while you think it’s truth, no amount of faith has ever powered my cell phone.

Call it what it is, theology, and stop billing it as truth until you’ve got some kind of concrete results – and no, other people agreeing doesn’t will into existence a single virgin birth.

Definitely too much whiskey.

You're engaging in a common fallacy, demanding that the propositions of one system live up to another. Science deals with the measurable, but neither does nor can say that what isn't measurable has no existence.

But since science has been mentioned, think of the truth of whatever religious system accurately represents communication from a Creator as something coming across a phase-change barrier: there's no way, from our side of the phase change, to verify communication from the other side, in terms that stand for "proof" on our side.

If your definition of "truth" is limited to what science can measure, be sure to refrain from saying, "I care about you" -- that can't be truth, because it can't be measured.

 

[falconfan]

I'll accept that.
So I need to learn Arabic.
Blast -- Hebrew was bad enough!



This is why a year ago I was defending the peaceful nature of Islam; those were the only verses I'd ever seen. Then I ran into the ones that according to Muslim preachers commanded violence.

I don't claim to have studied the Quran as I have the Old Testament, so I'm still piecing things together. From this, though -- I'll assume you're honest about context -- I'll return to my previous position, that Islam is inherently schizoid, with two tendencies pulling against each other.

That's just the thing though and the root of the real problem here. The bible is treated like a canonical test while the Qu'ran is not. If we haven't read it how can any of us really expect to discuss it in an intelligent and informed way? If we're relying on other people to select and translate passages for us then we are limiting ourselves. People can pick and choose passages from the bible ("If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death") just as easily in an attempt to manipulate our perceptions of it and misrepresent it's general meaning as is the case here.

 

[falconfan]

I treat them as I do the rest of the books of Moses: "old", and superseded, as God says later on in the Book of Acts. It's just part of the ongoing and unfolding instruction by God over the ages, with new lessons taught, new covenants in place, and the Holy Spirit "leading into all truth".
I also view it as with slavery: it was once permitted to treat people badly by having them as property, and it's now seen by any Christian you ask that slavery is incompatible with what Jesus -- and the Old Testament, really (cf. the preaching of the prophets) -- had to teach; thus it was once permitted to treat gays badly, but that is now to pass away.

And what gives you the authority to throw these portions out? To claim them as old and invalid. If the New Testament were to DIRECTLY contradict these things, as in the case of Mary Magdalen than you can argues they were superseded but if there isn't a direct reference than you can't justify discounting it on the basis of later text instead you're just discounting it because if disagrees with the overall tone of text, something that could be argued for the Qu'ran but I couldn't say that for certain because I've never read it on the whole... kinda like you can't say that those passages don't disagree with the overally tone because you haven't read ti as a whole either.

If only there was someone who actually is familiar with the Qu'ran... Fiest?

 

[falconfan]

This is fascinating and I'd love to hear more. Would you mind answering two questions (and I'm genuinely curious, this isn't snark. My father is Christian and I have great respect for the religion and the place that Jesus holds in many peoples' lives):

1. I could be missing something, but I don't follow your train of thought where Jesus condones "if it's a threat to life and limb, you can strike back." Were you referring to the scene in the Temple? Or was there another example/quote that you just forgot to include?

2. You say, "And indeed if it's someone else's life and limb, you're obligated to so strike" which is a noble concept in terms of loving thy neighbor, but again, how does this fit with the Temple scene? Jesus' wrath (as you identified it) in the Temple wasn't about defending another life was it? Again I'm asking because I could be misremembering this passage. Did the Temple scene included an act of violence that Jesus reacted to that I'm not recalling?

Thanks in advance.

The temple passages have nothing to do with self-defense or defense of others. It's about the moneychangers disrespecting religion by doing business in temple.

 

[falconfan]

I begin to wonder how you ever finished high school. When a teacher tried a new approach to explaining something, or worked at helping pin down a concept, did you yell, "You're moving the goalpost!"?

Your lies here don't help -- and they are lies, or indications that you aren't actually reading, only skimming: I didn't say a home or temple wasn't property, I didn't switch from "home invasion" to "sanctity", I didn't say bigotry or sanctity were cause for violence.

I can see where you find it easy to imagine I'm moving the goal post, when you're only imagining you're even on the playing field!

I'm pretty sure that they don't let people into Yale who haven't finished high school so I wouldn't worry about Nik.

 

[TX-Beau]

Definitely too much whiskey.

You're engaging in a common fallacy, demanding that the propositions of one system live up to another. Science deals with the measurable, but neither does nor can say that what isn't measurable has no existence.

you're engaging in a common fallacy, the idea that religion is a system in the first place.

 

[TX-Beau]

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

It is incumbent on those making the fantastic claims to provide the fantastic proofs.