Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

All I can do is point you at the texts. There are story after story of how Mohammad does some horrific thing, and when his followers question how this can be morally tolerable, he makes a statement of how this is God's will to humiliate the infidels. I'm paraphrasing, but that is what I read from it.

Whereas, when God commands Moses to butcher the male inhabitants of a city, but take the women, children and cattle as plunder, that's just a mistake of hermeneutics? When King David takes eight wives, that's culture? When Paul tells us that women should be utterly silent and subservient, we're just maybe not understanding him right? When Jesus tells us that he's the son of God, and that the world is coming to an end immediately (like, 2000 years ago immediately), we're to be charitable about the state of his mental health?

I don't object to the idea that the Koran is filled with violence, or that Mohammed said and did things that would be utterly unacceptable in our society, or even most societies. I believe I've said as much. My point is that this is true of basically all religious text, even the "peaceful" ones. Read in context, they're a mishmash of mythology, history, and philosophy, appropriate to their time and place, suitably edited by subsequent generations for their own purposes. Read out of context, they're the rantings of a bunch of lunatics which have to be heavily redacted to glean even the smallest bit of helpful sense for our current existence.

-Jester

(Edit: In deference to the "son of God" controversy, if you're theologically touchy on the subject, substitute "sent by God." Doesn't make much difference.)

[Zenda]

Edit: Ok, found some references to books -- recommended by ex-Muslim friend of mine (she is very critical of Islam now that she is Westernized);
Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Well, as an ex-Catholic who has become critical of Christianity after he was educated, I highly recommend you Why I Am Not a Christian from Bertrand Russell.

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes....A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

[kandrathe]

I don't object to the idea that the Koran is filled with violence, or that Mohammed said and did things that would be utterly unacceptable in our society, or even most societies.

So, compare Mohammad to Jesus. Which provides a better role model for modern society? That is my only point in comparing the two religious figures. One was peaceful, and even when standing up to corrupt Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman occupation remained peacefully resistant. He was the MLK of his place and time. You aren't going to wave your wand and turn the world into Atheists, so who will you tolerate? None?

Well, as an ex-Catholic who has become critical of Christianity after he was educated, I highly recommend you Why I Am Not a Christian from Bertrand Russell.

This isn't about me. This is about American society. For you then, I would recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. or The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the current Director of the National Institutes of Health appointed by Pres. Obama last July.

[Jester]

So, compare Mohammad to Jesus. Which provides a better role model for modern society? That is my only point in comparing the two religious figures. One was peaceful, and even when standing up to corrupt Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman occupation remained peacefully resistant. He was the MLK of his place and time.

First, removing everyone who isn't Jesus from Christianity is quite the surgery. While he is obviously the central figure, he is far from the only one that Christians acknowledge as holy authority. The Bible isn't just the four gospels.

Jesus wasn't a political or military leader, you're right. He was (if his early biographers are to be believed) the homeless guy wandering around with the "The End is Coming!" sign of his time. He insisted that he was the child of God, that he could perform miracles, that he would return from the grave, and that we should give up our worldly possessions and await the imminent end of the world. He also, rather pleasantly, insisted over and over again that whomever didn't believe him was going to be condemned to eternal hellfire by his Dad. If this seems somewhat unfair and arbitrary, it's a fair sight better than what his Dad supposedly did back in the day - and there is no question that this was the God he was invoking. This is a role model? If I did that, they'd toss me in a rubber room and pump me full of Xanax.

He wasn't exactly nice about it, either, per Matthew 10:34-38:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Good for him, emphasizing that fanaticism takes precedence over everything, that world peace is definitely not his goal, that he's here to turn you against your family, and that you have to love him more than anyone in the universe or else you're going to burn in hell. Gotta have your priorities straight, after all.

However, all of this is quite beside the point - your claim, the one I am contesting, is that the beliefs of Mohammed are not genuine, that they are a contrivance. The comparison to Jesus is irrelevant - this is not about how much you like or dislike him, or how much we may want or not want to believe their doctrine. Being peaceful, at least as described by your followers, does not equate to being genuine, nor does being warlike equate to lying. You're still no closer to demonstrating your point.

You aren't going to wave your wand and turn the world into Atheists, so who will you tolerate? None?

Where the heck did this come from? I think I made it clear earlier that I believe in religious tolerance, at least within the bounds of a lawful society. But projecting my beliefs back into history is as fruitless as projecting theirs forward into our time.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure myself. I do think, however, that your presumption would only support my position that the "Lie" was created as an effect of the serialization of the IP and not created as a means of character development. In the context of the story which has been told, and is explicit, Obi-Wan is a liar and the "Point of View" argument (although masquerading as wisdom) should be viewed as the BS that it is. One could argue that the tragedy he lived through with Anakin broke his faith in people and thus he was less willing to trust in Luke the second time around. This would be an interesting character arc if it was at all explored in any of the fiction, but alas it is not and trying to overlay it onto the story as it was told is reaching at best.

I agree with you. Indeed, my earlier post was in support of your idea. While you gave the what (that the lie served the structure of the story and not the development of the characters), I gave the why (poor advanced planning by Lucas). Indeed, given the actual development of the story (Obi-Wan's lie, his failure to tell Luke that Leia is his sister, Yoda's extreme reluctance to train him) episode 6 should have been titled Darth Junior as Luke turns to the dark side and becomes a Sith lord.

I enjoy the six main Star Wars films, but have no other experience or interest in the franchise. Last month I watched all six of them on two successive days. But I've been told by people (mostly my daughter) who follow the franchise that a fair bit of the back story has been locked down in franchise approved novels.

Star Wars is good. Had Lucas spent one percent as much time on his back story as Tolkien did on his, Star Wars could have been great.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not really too pertinent, but I just want to comment on three things:

When Paul tells us . . .

Indeed, almost everything Paul tells us is crap. Then again, one can make the argument that Christianity should be called Paulism. In many ways, Paul had more influence both on the early church and on modern Christianity than does Christ himself.

When Jesus tells us that he's the son of God, . . .

Other than in the sense that we are all children of god, where does Jesus claim to be The Son of God? Isn't the lack of this claim exactly what fostered centuries of dispute as to the nature of Jesus?

. . . and that the world is coming to an end immediately . . .

This is an important point that is constantly and carefully glossed over by Christian authorities. In many cases, Jesus states or implies that the end of the world (judgment day, the kingdom of god, etc.) will come soon. Indeed, in at least one case he states that many who are alive and listening to him will live to see it. Acknowledgment of that fact would lead to the inevitable conclusion that Christianity is busted, and has been for two millenia.

--Pete

[Jester]

Other than in the sense that we are all children of god, where does Jesus claim to be The Son of God? Isn't the lack of this claim exactly what fostered centuries of dispute as to the nature of Jesus?

It doesn't seem very plausible to me - when talking to my brother, I refer to my father as "our father." Does Hebrew/Aramaic/Whatever not contain the first person plural? Because Jesus is not shy about claiming that God is "my father" and claiming that "my father" gave him super special powers, which he can then bequeath onto others, like healing the sick. "Our father" does not come up so often. He certainly doesn't have a very collective message - he claims that "No man comes to the Father except through me." (Edit, afterthought: Compare, say, Buddhism.)

He also doesn't seem to ever object when anyone refers to him as God. To give a couple examples out of many, John 20:28-29 has Thomas saying "My Lord and my God!" upon seeing the resurrection. Jesus' reply? "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I suppose, charitably, you could claim this refers exclusively to the resurrection, and that Jesus just ignored the bit about being God.

John 8:42 seems to have him claiming that his opponents are not the children of God: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me." John 8:48-58 also makes very little sense except in light of Jesus claiming to be the son of God, or even God itself. What does "before Abraham was born, I am!" mean, except that he is immortal?

Who knows. Maybe you could fidget together an argument that, while he never denies it, and while he never corrects anyone who refers to him that way, he never technically claims he's God. Seems specious to me, but then, I'm not up to my ears in theology.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Who knows.

Who knows, indeed. When speaking of a mythical creature, attributing quotes is a bit problematic.;)

This pretty well summarizes my recollections from forty years ago. He was, after all, thought to be the descendant of David, the messiah, and a pious man. Any or all of these would also 'entitle' him to be called 'the son of god'. Further, the Lord's Prayer does begin with the plural, 'Our'. That would seem to indicate that Christ thought of all as children of god, a common idea in Judaism (IIRC).

Other than intellectual curiosity, I find the subject rather moot. The whole question of whether Christ was the son of god, human or divine, or god himself, or a fraction of some mysterious and incomprehensible trinity is nonsense in my opinion. It was interesting as a stepping stone to atheism that I crossed long ago, but now it is just part of the myths, legends, and superstitions that at times amuse me and at others irritate.

--Pete

[Zenda]

For you then, I would recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. or The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. the current Director of the National Institutes of Health appointed by Pres. Obama last July.

Did you fail to see the sarcasm of my reply, or did you choose to ignore it?

Allright, then. Lewis largely based his defense of Christianity on the argument from morality. This hasn't convinced me before, and it won't convince me now. Collins believes in theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism), also described as "a superfluous attempt to smuggle God in by the back door". I think Collins should stick to what he is good at.

Let me help you out, though, in your quest to show the world how violent the Islam is. Sam Harris is a fervent atheist and proponent of scientific skepticism. He conducted research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. But just like you, this guy is convinced that "the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization". Maybe you'll find some decent arguments there.

This is about American society.

Is that so? I thought you were concerned for my country being in the "front lines facing internal assimilation", where Muslims "grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence" (link).

[kandrathe]

First, removing everyone who isn't Jesus from Christianity is quite the surgery. While he is obviously the central figure, he is far from the only one that Christians acknowledge as holy authority. The Bible isn't just the four gospels.

Why do you keep bringing this back to the Bible? Jesus Christ! Christians are about Christ! So, it was him, not Moses, or Noah, or Abraham, or David, or Joshua, or Paul, or Peter, or John the Baptist, or John the Apostle, or John the one who wrote Revelations. If we were talking about Buddhism, we'd look at the life and morality of Buddha, right?

If I did that, they'd toss me in a rubber room and pump me full of Xanax.

You mean they HAVEN'T??? :lol:

However, all of this is quite beside the point - your claim, the one I am contesting, is that the beliefs of Mohammed are not genuine, that they are a contrivance.

I've shown you what I've read, and I've shown you what an ex-muslim friend of mine suggested. I'm working with a bunch of albeit (biased by your standards I sure) Christian and Jewish Phds. who are translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, among other historical and archeological work in the middle east. I'm studying Hebrew, and Aramaic with some friends at the university where I work casually a couple times a week, and my opinion has been tempered by what I've learned over many years (as well as being in harmony with those experts I work and study with). Maybe, they are not all so politically correct as your Cambridge compatriots ( at least in safe private conversations).

Again, you've set up an impossible acid test for me to try to convince you what happened in the mind of a mad man over 14 centuries ago. I say, read for yourself, or we are done discussing it. You go ahead and believe that Mohammad was not using the mish-mash of proto-Christian, Gnostic, and Judaic flotsam in Arabia, and mixing in his own justification for theft, rape, and murder justified by God. You can. It's ok with me. I can't force the understanding into your brain. You will need to go get it, or not.

It would be equally unfair and difficult for me to expect you to convince me that Mohammad was sincere in his delusions and beliefs. I think this is just one of those cases where we are equally unwilling to spend the 80 hours of research to try to win an point on the LL off topic board, and will probably just need to leave it as an unanswered proposition. I say he was insincere, you think he was sincere. Ok?

[kandrathe]

Did you fail to see the sarcasm of my reply, or did you choose to ignore it?

I chose to respond in reflection to your non-sequitur post. So, neither. Bertrand Russell is irrelevant to why Mohammad's religion is a sham.

Is that so? I thought you were concerned for my country being in the "front lines facing internal assimilation", where Muslims "grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence" (link).

What is happening there is happening in Toronto, and Detroit. This is beyond a national problem. Like other dangerous -isms, this one is fought in the mind. It's any radical philosophy that suggests that is is "ok" to walk up and blow you away, just because you are black, or white, or Jewish, or Palestinian, or Islamic, or American, an intellectual, performing abortions, or being anything but what they think you should be.

Here is a CNN video from London -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jIrj7XpkKU

[Jester]

Why do you keep bringing this back to the Bible? Jesus Christ! Christians are about Christ! So, it was him, not Moses, or Noah, or Abraham, or David, or Joshua, or Paul, or Peter, or John the Baptist, or John the Apostle, or John the one who wrote Revelations. If we were talking about Buddhism, we'd look at the life and morality of Buddha, right?

Call me crazy, but if I held a Bible up to a Christian, and asked "is this what you believe in?" the answer I'm expecting is "yes." Are you claiming this is not so? Last I checked, at least for mainstream Christian theology, the whole Bible is divinely inspired work. It is scripture.

Where do the ten commandments come from? Where do Adam 'n Eve come from? Noah's flood? The seven seals? Mark of the beast? Jonah and the whale? Trials of Job? Walls of Jericho? This is an awful lot of Christian belief to toss overboard. The four gospels may have pride of place, but Christians and Christianity has never restricted itself to Christ and Christ alone. The Old Testament, the Acts, the Epistles, Revelations... they're really not kidding when they call it "The Bible." It's *the* book, all of it. If you're not talking about all of it, you're talking about something other than Christianity - or at least not the mainstream sects.

Buddhism is actually not a bad example. Do they focus exclusively on the life and work of the one singular Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama? I would suggest that it's a lot more complicated than that, even before you get into reincarnation.

Again, you've set up an impossible acid test for me to try to convince you what happened in the mind of a mad man over 14 centuries ago.

...

It would be equally unfair and difficult for me to expect you to convince me that Mohammad was sincere in his delusions and beliefs.

...

I say he was insincere, you think he was sincere. Ok?

You're the one making positive claims about Mohammed's motives. You're dead right when you say it's impossible for either of us to read the mind of a long-dead man. But I'm not claiming to - you are. You say his religion is a contrivance. I make no claims about his sincerity. He could have been crazy, manipulative, good-intentioned-but-deceitful, metaphorically inclined, paranormally inspired... I don't think we can tell (okay, the last one's not so likely.) But what I do notice is how thoroughly you reject it, while simultaneously being willing to take (for instance) Joseph Smith perfectly seriously as a believer in his own faith. Like I said, it doesn't seem balanced.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But what I do notice is how thoroughly you reject it, while simultaneously being willing to take (for instance) Joseph Smith perfectly seriously as a believer in his own faith. Like I said, it doesn't seem balanced.

I can't read Joseph Smith's mind either. His fundamentalist contemporaries are committed (or should be). But, there is a vast portion of Mormonism that has become more moderate, and is more tolerable within our culture. But, you are right in drawing a parallel between the FLDS choosing to ignore centuries of history, and Islamicists who choose to ignore centuries of history. Both pine for those glorious ancient days, when men were men, and women were chattel. Like I said earlier, citizens, whether they be FLDS, Islamicists, or skin heads should be afforded Constitutional rights. That was my only point in siding against the government in that case. Do you understand that difference? I don't believe the underwear bomber has constitutional rights, since he is obviously an enemy combatant in our war on terrorism (wars on ideologies aside). Back to Mohammad, you don't know if he was sincere and you haven't read the texts. I believe he was manipulative, and I have read the texts. What is missing is that you have no basis to make an informed decision, and I feel that I do.

Regarding the ancient texts; Only fundamentalist Christian's (<3% of all Christians) "believe" the bible in the way you are interpreting it. The other recognize the difference between the Old and New testaments and they recognize the difference between the gospels, and the additional works added later. Many, including me, look at gnostic, epigraphical and other apocryphal works rejected at Nicea for insight. Regarding Paul, and his rules about women and men, well, observe modern Christians and how much of that antiquity has been set aside. The same is true with only about 25% of Islam where it is allowed to be moderate, meaning that about 75% of Muslims follow a fundamentalist ideology. Only the extremist fundamentalist Muslims choose to interpret the Quran in the most violent ways. There is very little that separate the true believer from the homicide bomber.

[Jester]

I can't read Joseph Smith's mind either. His contemporaries are committed (or should be).

Committed to their religion? Or committed to an asylum?

Only fundamentalist Christian's (<3% of all Christians) "believe" the bible in the way you are interpreting it.

Less than three percent of Christians believe that all the works of the Bible are scripture, divinely inspired by God? That number seems shockingly low. This is a different belief from inerrancy, or biblical literalism. Even so, I would suspect even those numbers are higher than three measly percent, especially in the US, but probably worldwide as well. Got a source? A quick google gives me Gallup, with vastly higher numbers: 31% believe it is the literal word of God, and nearly 80% believe it is either that, or inspired by God. That's a lot higher than 3%, at least for the US.

Back to Mohammad, you don't know if he was sincere and you haven't read the texts. I believe he was manipulative, and I have read the texts. What is missing is that you have no basis to make an informed decision, and I feel that I do.

Are you mistaking me for Zenda? Or just assuming I haven't read the Koran?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Committed to their religion? Or committed to an asylum?

Yeah, you read that correctly! :lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

A quick google gives me Gallup, with vastly higher numbers:

Thanks for that link. A lot to speculate on there. Like why the education anti-correlation, is it school or is it intelligence? Why is so little of the shift from literal to figurative rather than to fictional?

Overall, those numbers scare me. Especially those for the educated people. What do those results say for our educational system and the development of clear, independent, thinking?

--Pete

[Delc]

Hi,
Thanks for that link. A lot to speculate on there. Like why the education anti-correlation, is it school or is it intelligence? Why is so little of the shift from literal to figurative rather than to fictional?

Overall, those numbers scare me. Especially those for the educated people. What do those results say for our educational system and the development of clear, independent, thinking?

--Pete

It looks like the education system does a pretty decent job. I would guess the lack of people shifting to 'work of fiction' is because people just don't want to admit that the whole thing might be built on a lie. I mean, if its not the word of god, or at least inspired, then its just some incoherent ramblings from some crazies in the desert 2000 years ago.

[Zenda]

The same is true with only about 25% of Islam where it is allowed to be moderate, meaning that about 75% of Muslims follow a fundamentalist ideology.

Asking where you got those numbers from would be a futile exercise, I suspect, so I won't bother. But tell me, wouldn't this fundamentalist majority adhere to Koran scriptures like the following?

"And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit." (29:46)

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (2:62)

"Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth (that Muhammed is Allah's Messenger) has become manifest unto them. But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His Command. Verily Allah is Able to do all things." (2:109)

I don't believe in all that 'Fundamentalist Islam is bad' stuff. Like always, it's just people abusing a religion to further their own personal or political goals.

[Jester]

Thanks for that link. A lot to speculate on there. Like why the education anti-correlation, is it school or is it intelligence? Why is so little of the shift from literal to figurative rather than to fictional?

I suspect the proximate cause is region. The worst educated regions are the most religious, and vice versa. Whether *that* is causal, I don't know. My guess is that the answer is yes, and that the causation runs both ways, in a loop. But that's just a guess.

As for figurative-over-fictional, I've met a lot of very educated people who, for reasons I strongly suspect are social, have lost their strong belief, but still maintain a vague vestige of it, rather than switching to full unbelief. Most theists are willing to let you off the hook if you say something mealymouthed about religion, but a flat denial elicits a rather different response.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It looks like the education system does a pretty decent job. I would guess the lack of people shifting to 'work of fiction' is because people just don't want to admit that the whole thing might be built on a lie.

If the educational system were really doing a good job, then educated people would look for the truth and accept it when they found it.

I mean, if its not the word of god, or at least inspired, then its just some incoherent ramblings from some crazies in the desert 2000 years ago.

Not necessarily so. No one claims that the works of Plato (for instance) are inspired by god, yet his writings are still studied and still contribute to the foundations of our present ethics. There are concepts of value in the Bible. There are quasi-historical tales that, like the Iliad of the Greeks, may be based on actual events. There are fictional tales that give us an insight into the behavior of people in that region and at that time. Some of the stories have been 'borrowed' from adjoining cultures, and that gives us indications of how different people related to each other and how the stories evolved.

No, I think the bible is a treasure trove of the ancient Middle East. I wish we had similar collections from every part of the world -- from Greece, from Northern Europe, from the British Islands, from sub-Sahara Africa, central Asia, North, South, and mezzo-America, etc. We would know so much more of so many fascinating cultures. Stripped of the superstition surrounding it, the Bible is a fascinating work.

--Pete