The saving grace of the Bible is the New Testament. The Old Testament is as tribalist, self-contradictory and violent as the Qur'an. I guess Islam is still waiting for its equivalent of Jesus --it took Judaism 1500 years for him to come along and clean up their act. Islam is only about 1400 years old (having come along about 600 years later) so we may have to wait another century. I'm only being partially facetious. Religions appear to evolve and go through phases. For instance Hinduism originates from about 2000 BC and spawned Buddhism in 500 BC --1500 years later. For Christianity the Reformation happened --you guessed it-- again about 1500 years later. Every now and then religions seem to lose their spiritual content and deteriorate into tribalist rituals and empty dogma. Someone comes along who has a crisis of faith and shakes things up. Lather, rinse, repeat. To argue that Islam is less enlightened than Christianity is to say that a younger sibling is less mature than an older sibling. You cannot compare the two --they are at different stages in their development.
*notes that Jesus was also in the Qur'an, just as a prophet instead of a messiah* People just need to wake up and smell the roses. I really agree with whoever said that religion is a form of mild to extreme insanity.
Referring to your sig, the human condition is one of mild to extreme insanity. Think of it as an emergence phenomenon: the more sophisticated the software, the more buggy the performance.
yeah insanity would sum up the world today.. interesting way to look at islam nexxo- I never thought of it like that, or the jews for that matter and their belief that the jesus wasn't the son of god.. I always had trouble with the ot you wanna hear a funny one- the mormons prophet and jesus was an american.. when one of the preachers sat down and told me that story my head just about popped off I was like wait a minute.. jesus walked over here in the united states while at the same time walking over seas- it's the same stories from the new testament too, just different settings.. of course the founder had polygamy slipped in- what the heck might as well while he was smoking that stickey green and scientology.. do we even have to go there heheh if your a jehovah witness, you have basically no chance of getting to heaven.. it's written right there in revelations! (yeah right) I am one of those guys who has read revalations quite a few times and can't for the life of me get one useful thing from it.. I'd like to know kayins thoughts on that I like the luthern, methodist churches and buddism myself.. but I have my own beliefs- no tiger woods type of beliefs either.. the new testament is a great set of books in my eyes- I dunno how you can really dispute what is written there.. can't really talk about the koran- I haven't read enough of it to really say my grandad had a good saying I still like to quote.. too much of anything isn't good for you benji! =] that's about as wise as words get imo.. I think some of these guys have drank a little too much of the koolaid
As a Mormon ( please don't hit me ) I can safely say that whoever told you we believe Jesus was American is an idiot.
I sat down with a guy from the church.. read the book of mormon (know they read both that book and king james).. basically jesus walked here and over there at the exact same time.. and of course as we got into the prophet who wrote the book, the gold tablets he found ascended to heaven you know I'm a really open person.. but after looking at other religions in my studies, I really had a hard time with wrapping my head around that one.. jesus basically walks on earth in two places at once.. maybe saying jesus was an american was off- and being the son of god maybe he could do that, but then I look at the source.. it's all from one man and that's where I had to stop- I just didn't believe it the preacher they sent was quick to take his book back too.. I just told him sorry but I don't believe it.. not trying to say it's not true but for me what impresses me about the mormons though, is they bother to learn other languages in order to recruit new ethnic groups that come to the states.. seems they are hard working
True, I did learn Tagalog. And of the eight people in my family ( that includes the two sister in laws ) six are bilingual ( four spanish, one portugese, and me the tagalog ) As for the rest of the debate, I will agree with Nexxo but have a more glib outlook on things. People get used to being "insulted", meaning what they perceive to be insults, and eventually down the line it's all old hat. Burning a Qu'ran in the future may just incite a shrug of the shoulders. What I think is going to take much more time is getting humanity to accept that other humans are human.
Burning a Book of Mormon is certainly a shrug of the shoulders! But I guess when you're building off of a religion which has already had its evolutionary cycle you don't get a sacred time.
Well, the difference with burning a Book of Mormon is that in the US, it's pretty much accepted as a cult, not a religion. There is a difference. LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are both not defined as a church in all of my literature from school (and I studied comparative religions at a secular school, with an atheist teacher so as to try to get a semblance of a fair view of them) but as cults, if benign. There is a difference in a heterodoxy (Protestants versus Catholics) and a rewriting of the text. That said, I find both sets to be sincere, good people for the most part and they work at the Great Commission far better than the average Protestant. Nexxo, that is an interesting point you raise. Do you see a second prophet rising in the nation of Islam to lead them into the future, or do you see them staying firmly in the areas of human rights abuse and terror? I admit, you're a psychologist, but as one, does it seem likely to you? I've been given an interesting question. I'm gonna have to puzzle over what that would do, if it were to happen. Anybody but me see the French banned the niqab and burqa? While I'm all for freedom of religion, and I even see the point of VOLUNTARY (and I do mean completely voluntary) veils, I agree with this move. I especially liked the heavy penalties for forcing it upon someone (and double for minors.) That's another sticky widget there, the teaching of a religion's tenets to a child, but as neither veil is required by shari'a (as I can see, it is recommended, but not required) then it is not an issue of religious freedom but a way to control women-something that is an abuse of the rights of women and an affront to thinking people. If people wonder why I said I understand why for the voluntary veiling of women, I'll gladly make my opinion known. I have a very good friend (I treat her more like a little sister) who just happens to be um, well endowed. It's an interesting thing to watch every man we meet stare at her chest. She doesn't wear anything revealing at all, there's just so much you can do with them after a certain point. She has been asked by other women why she doesn't show them off a little more, and her response is always the same-she'd rather be seen for her intelligence (which she has a lot of, as well) than for her chest. In that way, if a woman wishes to be seen for more than just a procreating machine, I can see why a voluntary veiling is good for her self-worth. There's always more than one side to an issue. Even though I am not Muslim, I understand a woman's wish for modesty. Forcing a person into it is a way to control, and causes shame-a human body is a beautiful thing. I do believe, however, that it is something that each individual should retain control over as far as showing or not showing. As freedom-loving people, I believe we should allow others to choose for themselves, but I applaud France for barring others from making the choice for others. A core belief in Christianity is the concept of free will. Simply put, an action is worth nothing if it is coerced. Only by personal choice do actions take on any meaning. I can be told to do something all I want, but it means nothing if I don't believe in what I'm doing. I'm sure each of you, Christian and atheist, or any other faith, can remember being told to do something you didn't want to, and knowing you might go through the motions but your heart's not in it. While certain acts are irrevocable whether your heart's in it or not, even our courts take motive into consideration. It's a simple logical statement. Making laws that abolish religion would be a human rights violation. Making a law that allows others to force women to wear a veil they don't want to is a human rights violation. As to teaching children about religion, there is a point in which I think it becomes ridiculous. I was brought up in a Christian home, and the only reason I was forced into going to church was there was nobody to babysit me. I don't consider myself worse for the wear, though-my decision to become a Christian myself was mine and mine alone. I do believe that having a moral foundation helped me to not make some poor decisions, though it certainly didn't help me not make some others. Now, it helps me deal with a terminal and crippling illness-and even if there is nothing out there and I wasted all my effort, because I attempted to show charity, faithfulness, integrity and honor as required of me by the tenets of Christianity I can die knowing I helped a few people have an easier time here. I'm sure I'll have a shot taken at me for calling my upbringing moral, but it was more about "these are the right things to do to people, and these reasons should be self-evident" than "this is the way to act, and it's what a book tells me." Who's putting bets on the next attack being against the French, though? Or Spain and Belgium, both considering banning the face veil as well? Ridiculous to say, but even as I agree with their actions, I see it as being a dangerous step.
Exactly, being civil, decent, and kind to others is something that transcends any idea of religion, race, or affiliation.
It still amazes me that so many people feel that they need some kind of invisible overlord looking over them every second to keep them (and others) from straying off this morally just path. As said before, they're probably mildly/totally/batshit insane
The corollary to that, IMHO anyway, is that regardless of religious or political affiliation or belief, certainty is bed. If you're sure you're right and therefore don't need to question your actions, rampant badness ensues. Every religion, including science, teaches it's adherents to examine their own actions and beliefs, and to evaluate how well they match the tenets of the religion. Where all sides get in trouble is when they become certain of their own righteousness and stop examining their own beliefs and actions.
Since when is science a religion? Religion equals dogma which nobody can't question without tearing up the religion. Science equals theories which need questioning and do receive this. There's no dogma among real scientists. Failure to reflect upon one's own actions and beliefs or opinions is a failure of human nature, unrelated to something as abstract as a religion. Or maybe religion/dogma is the result of this failure
When there is substantial grant money or reputation at risk, scientists are just as prone to fundamentalist thinking as your average "batshit insane" religious person. And yes, religious people are perfectly capable of self-reflection and modifying their beliefs accordingly. This is why we have the New Testament, and why we no longer throw people in a lake as a test for witchcraft.
Islam may appear to be doing well (producing more converts at the moment than any other religion) but it is, in my opinion, a religion in crisis. The Christian Church is too, what with the schisms on ordination of female and openly homosexual clergy and the child abuse scandals, but at least the ordinations are happening and the abuse is being acknowledged. In the end the Christian Church is slowly relinquishing its dogmas and evolving, and I think that will be what will save it in the long term. After all, Christianity originally was all about challenging dogma, so it's kind of wired into the belief system. Islam is much more rigid and dogmatic. Its origins do not lie in challenging established religious dogma; its origins lie in feudal chaos. Hence a lot of Islam is really frontier law: these are the rules, you will respect authority, disobedience will not be tolerated. Although this apparent strength of faith and firm rules make it attractive to insecure individuals who need an external authoritarian paternalistic framework to guide them through the uncertainties of life, they will also be the first people to turn on it when in the end, Islam fails to deliver the goods. The personalities it attracts work that way: one extreme to the other. There is no middle road. Not many Taoists in Islam. And fail to deliver it will. The Middle East is going through a deepening crisis. In 100 years the oil will start running out, and people in countries like Afghanistan, Jemen, Lebanon and Iraq will start to get tired of fighting over trivial ideological differences while their children are starving in the dust. They will find themselves sandwiched between an increasingly powerful Far East and a still relatively powerful and affluent West, and fundamentalist preaching and oppression will simply not do the trick anymore as it fails to bring the order and security it promises, while countries in the UAE thrive off the affluent tourist market as they get increasingly corrupted by commercialism and pay Islam only ritualistic lip service. At some point people will feel disillusioned because their faith did not deliver, but they will regard their wealthy brethren as having lost their way also. And then it will be the most staunch followers who will have the biggest crisis of faith and start looking for a new messiah. There are 'prophets' all over the place. Ghandi was one. Martin Luther King was one (Nexxo's rule: there are no 'true' or 'false' prophets, because all beliefs are 'true' for a given value of true. But they range from good/wise to bad/misguided ones). Most are modest, inspiring their local community and being at the center of a few good initiatives. Some are ringleaders of a heap of trouble. Occasionally, when the conditions are right, and the person has the right attributes, and is moved by a Big Cause, a prophet shines. He becomes a messiah. Hitler was a bad/misguided one; Ghandi was a good/wise one. In 100 years I estimate conditions in the Middle East to be just right for theirs to come along. Let's hope it's a good one. I've followed it and I'm afraid I don't agree. I do not think you can deal with women being forced to wear a veil by forcing them not to wear one. Although it challenges the phenomenon, it does not teach women that they have a choice in the matter. It simply becomes an issue of: do I obey my religion, or do I obey the State? Guess what they will choose. Islam loves its martyrs. As you yourself state: Similarly: Making a law that forces women not to wear a veil they want to is a human rights violation also. Another one of Nexxo's rules: an outcome is only as good as the means by which it was achieved. Second, the motives behind this move are flawed. This is not about liberating women; this is about xenophobia. This law should be seen in the context of France's current engagement in deporting all Roma gypsies (wheras Spain, interestingly shows how it could be done differently).
yeah but france likes the drama.. remember when jacques chirac said he was going to use nukes on everyone.. you just have to laugh sometimes nexxos rules huh =]
I'm always going to stick to what I believe. Thankyou Warhammer for teaching it me... or more over parts of it. 'Fear denies Faith' - Faith in yourself and no-one else to do exactly what is right for you and your friends/family/loved one's. Nexxo, stop hogging the forums with your smart-making! Or i'll get all ninja on your ass and sell you to Microsoft! >.<
