Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

This branch of the thread started with a disagreement on Mohammad's character. If you Google {Muhammad koran "war lord" -video -movie}, you'll get hundreds of links to disagreeing opinions.

I think you misrepresent me. Denying that Mohammed was a "war lord" would be stupid, given his rather impressive record of conquests. This aspect of his biography is not in doubt, and I haven't questioned it, although I have pointed out the differences in how Kandrathe emphasizes Mohammed vs. the founders of other religions.

What I am really wondering is how Kandrathe came to believe that his religion was not genuine, or at least, any less genuine than the founders of other religions. That some people disagree would not surprise me in the least, especially the kind you'd find in a quick Google search. My question is directed at the scholarship: Are there any learned, rather than simply propagandistic, opinions supporting this idea? Upon what is this based?

-Jester

Afterthought: Ran that particular google search. Surely there must be a better way to dredge up good opinions than looking through that dreck?

[Zenda]

This branch of the thread started with a disagreement on Mohammad's character.

Thank you. What would we do if we didn't have you to tell us what we are talking about? Well, that means this discussion is over, I suppose. No true Atheist, Christian or Muslim would deny that Mohammed deserved the title of Warlord, afaik.

Again, I recommend you to Google {"sign language" teach Washoe}.

Could you please present your arguments more clearly, instead of just hinting at them? That way, I'll avoid getting off in the wrong direction, like I did with Mohammed.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Afterthought: Ran that particular google search. Surely there must be a better way to dredge up good opinions than looking through that dreck?

Not that I could find in about an hour or so; my Google-fu is weak on this.

As to the rest, you are quite right. I should have been clearer, but it didn't seem worth it at the time. :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Afterthought: Ran that particular google search. Surely there must be a better way to dredge up good opinions than looking through that dreck?

That dreck is the problem. Like I said earlier; 1) fatwa -- any living historian or scholar who makes the solid case that Islam is based upon a sham would be immediate terrorist bait. Sign me up for that! 2) political correctness -- our historians and scholars are twisted up like the Gordian knot trying to not offend anyone with their opinions. 3) bias - Any person who is identified with Islam, Christianity, Judaism would be automatically disqualified even if they clearly footnote every claim. So you get dreck, and maybe a few sources. Which is why in my studies, I return to the most reliable translations of the oldest historical non-embellished accounts of any middle eastern writings.

Another note regarding translations of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc. The people doing the translation may have a motive in choosing the words of their translation. For example, I believe the accepted Hebrew translation of the Torah makes the old testament God, much more violent than is probably the correct translation. Why would Jews or Christians want this translation? Because it justifies their violence. If you make adjustments selecting some of the proper words, the entire translation shows a people who ignore their Gods advice for temperance, and suffer because of their violent choices. You'd need to know Hebrew to see what I mean, but in the theological field it is called Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and Isogesis.

So again, you can't even trust the translations and need to find reliable sources for proper interpretation of even those verses that you or I quoted. We can toss violent passages from the Torah, or Koran about, but I don't really trust the motivations of the translators enough to stand behind yours or my claims. I have a good friend (not Islamic) who is fluent in Arabic, and she points out that many English translations of the Koran have intentionally softened the language (especially those regarding the treatment of women). This was probably done to encourage Western people to embrace Islam, whereas if they read the accurate translation they would be put off.

So, why have I not tossed a bunch of sources and justifications? Well, from where I sit it seems entirely fruitless for us to have a discussion, debate, argument standing on such infirm ground.

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
Understanding Muhammad: A psychobiography by Ali Sina
The Truth about Muhammad by Robert Spencer <-- probably the most one sided, yet he's truthful on that one side.

[kandrathe]

In my house we only obey the rules of thermodynamics.

In my house we obey my laws. Although, mine include but are not limited to; the law of thermodynamics, Newtons three laws of motion, the law of supply and demand, the law of the jungle, the law of attraction, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of cosines. But, my primary law we live by is the law of spousal approval.

[--Pete]

Hi,

In my house we obey my laws. Although, mine include but are not limited to; the law of thermodynamics, Newtons three laws of motion, the law of supply and demand, the law of the jungle, the law of attraction, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of cosines. But, my primary law we live by is the law of spousal approval.

Ah, what bliss. Around here, entropy and uncertainty rule. And Schrödinger's cat -- of which we have three and they observe us quite closely.:w00t:

--Pete

[Jester]

For example, I believe the accepted Hebrew translation of the Torah makes the old testament God, much more violent than is probably the correct translation.

This would be your opinion as a Talmudic scholar? Or are you just relying on your gut instinct for Hebrew translation? I've never even heard this suggested before.

Telling me it's "hermeneutics" doesn't add anything - of course it's hermeneutics. But if I said I could fly, and told you it was "physics", I doubt you'd be impressed.

So, why have I not tossed a bunch of sources and justifications? Well, from where I sit it seems entirely fruitless for us to have a discussion, debate, argument standing on such infirm ground.

So we're left with what? Your general impression that Mohammed was probably just fakin'?

I'm sorry. Your hunches strike me as much more "infirm ground" than the scholarship you have such fantastic reasons for dismissing. And I'm certainly not buying any argument about Hebrew translations without specifics.

-Jester

Edit: You've added in books - I'll see if I can find copies. I can't say they look promising - Robert Spencer? Some guy claiming to diagnose Mohammed's mental illnesses? But what the hey. Maybe they're more than just propaganda - you're really convinced this is less "infirm" than the Cambridge History of Islam?

[kandrathe]

So we're left with what? Your general impression that Mohammed was probably just fakin'?

My implication here is that hearing what I've said from ex-Muslims should be more convincing. If not, then we're no where. If you'd like to believe that Islam is valid, and that Mohammad's mish-mash of Gnostic, Judaic, and other proto-Christian beliefs coupled with revisionist prophecies in hindsight, then I'm at a loss as to how to show you the truth.

Which makes more sense? Mohammad was a prophet and heard God speak to him, or Mohammad was a war lord who sought to justify his rule through co-opting various popular local religious beliefs and adding his own spin to it. I choose to believe that he was that latter, and my reading of the Koran, and other early historical references to him (which I listed) do not sway me from that opinion. So, read them and choose for yourself, or, you can trust your Oxford politically correct Bell and Witt, or you can look into the opinions of various ex-Muslims.

[Chesspiece_face]

Edit: You've added in books - I'll see if I can find copies. I can't say they look promising - Robert Spencer? Some guy claiming to diagnose Mohammed's mental illnesses? But what the hey. Maybe they're more than just propaganda - you're really convinced this is less "infirm" than the Cambridge History of Islam?

Speaking of Robert Spencer, Here is the web page he runs: Jihad Watch. As you can see it is a very balanced and unbiased page. <_<

[kandrathe]

Speaking of Robert Spencer, Here is the web page he runs: Jihad Watch. As you can see it is a very balanced and unbiased page. <_<

Yup. He is very anti-Islamic. Very one-sided. But, what he reports is accurate from that anti-Islamic point of view.

Here is another ex-Muslim author with a bit more credibility than Spencer -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish

[Chesspiece_face]

Yup. He is very anti-Islamic. Very one-sided. But, what he reports is accurate from that anti-Islamic point of view.

Ah I see. Sort of like how Obi-Wan Kenobi lied his ass off to Luke about his father and then muddied it all over by claiming a certain point of view. "Uh no, Obi-Wan my father being murdered by an evil jedi is not the same thing as my father being an evil jedi..."

[kandrathe]

Ah I see. Sort of like how Obi-Wan Kenobi lied his ass off to Luke about his father and then muddied it all over by claiming a certain point of view. "Uh no, Obi-Wan my father being murdered by an evil jedi is not the same thing as my father being an evil jedi..."

From my quick research, Alec Guiness (the best Obi-Wan IMHO) converted to Catholicism, and recited Psalm 143 every morning. The Jedi robe is sort of like a monks robe... Do you think the "lie" was just a way to lure the young Skywalker into his Jedi faith, without angering him by telling him his father was the scourge of the universe. Sort of hard to slip into polite conversation, that your dad is one of the most malevolently evil people EVAR!

From Jihad Watch -- http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/jedi-for...t-in-wales.html

[--Pete]

Hi,

Here is another ex-Muslim author . . .

What I find interesting is the apparent tendency for anti-Muslim writers to use pseudonyms. They claim that it is for fear or reprisals. Anti-Christian writers, OTOH, don't seem to be concerned about their identity. Not sure of all the implications there, but it does seem a bit telling.

BTW, why not: Which makes more sense? Moses was a prophet and heard God speak to him, or Moses was a war lord who sought to justify his rule through co-opting various popular local religious beliefs and adding his own spin to it.

If you want to decide religious questions using sense, then you have to concede that *all* of it is nonsense. The basis are superstitious myths accepted by ignorant primitives but not credible to educated, informed, and logical moderns. Any vale found in religion cannot come from its false premises, and thus must be in spite of rather than because of religion.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

If you want to decide religious questions using sense, then you have to concede that *all* of it is nonsense. The basis are superstitious myths accepted by ignorant primitives but not credible to educated, informed, and logical moderns. Any vale found in religion cannot come from its false premises, and thus must be in spite of rather than because of religion.

The pseudonyms probably are an attempt to protect any family left behind.

Let's tackle one nut at a time. I'm still unclear about Moses -- and... his time is well obscured in history where the only histories are entirely one sided, and probably into the realms of mythology. Often, with literature, I use what I call the *sniff* test. Much of it stinks. I think I've said this before, but... I'm unwilling to declare a whole bunch of human experience and philosophy nonsense without sifting through it.

[Chesspiece_face]

From my quick research, Alec Guiness (the best Obi-Wan IMHO) converted to Catholicism, and recited Psalm 143 every morning. The Jedi robe is sort of like a monks robe... Do you think the "lie" was just a way to lure the young Skywalker into his Jedi faith, without angering him by telling him his father was the scourge of the universe. Sort of hard to slip into polite conversation, that your dad is one of the most malevolently evil people EVAR!

I think the lie served the purpose of the structure of the serialized story and not the purpose of the characters. Obi-Wan had the opportunity when he met Luke to give the kid context and purpose to his life by laying it all out there. This is why you are stuck on this godforsaken rock, this is the very real threat you face as well as those who have taken care of you and love you, and this is why you have a responsiblity to not follow in your father's footsteps. Instead he showed a complete lack of trust in Luke's individuality and his ability to actually think and understand complex issues and treated him like a child. If any real person was subjected to what Obi-Wan did (not under the constraints of a serialized program) they would most likely say "Eff you Obi-Wan you lying shyster, look at all the suffering you put me through because you never trusted in me." The context of the story however has Luke learning through his trials and tribulations. A more realistic conclusion from this series of events would lead Luke to being a broken and hopeless individual with everything he put his trust into turned back on him as fabrication and lie.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think the lie . . .

I think the lie was George Lucas' claim that he had the whole nine part series worked out. I suspect he had a pretty good idea of the first part (episode 4), a vague notion of the first trilogy, and a sorta hunch that he could milk it for nine. Beyond that, I suspect that he was winging it. Darth didn't become Luke's father, I'm guessing, till episode 5 needed something to bolster the story. Otherwise, it would have been just a redo of 4 with a travelogue of a swamp thrown in for comic effect. If disagree you do, glad to debate I am.:)

From Gallagher , from memory:
This old man, boo, hiss, puke,
You should see what he did to Luke.
Saying, "Hi, lad, I'm your dad.
Sorry about the hand.
In the sequel you'll understand."

--Poda, Jedi flunk out. :lol:

[Chesspiece_face]

hi,
I think the lie was George Lucas' claim that he had the whole nine part series worked out. I suspect he had a pretty good idea of the first part (episode 4), a vague notion of the first trilogy, and a sorta hunch that he could milk it for nine. Beyond that, I suspect that he was winging it. Darth didn't become Luke's father, I'm guessing, till episode 5 needed something to bolster the story. Otherwise, it would have been just a redo of 4 with a travelogue of a swamp thrown in for comic effect. If disagree you do, glad to debate I am.:)

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.

[Jester]

So, read them and choose for yourself, or, you can trust your Oxford politically correct Bell and Witt, or you can look into the opinions of various ex-Muslims.

Cambridge. And I do love the way you dismiss the entire body of academic scholarship with a wave of the hand and an accusation of political correctness. Where are all those lectures you've given me over the years about attacking the argument and not the source?

We're talking about Mohammed. The guy who lived 1400 years ago. We're not talking about how well his doctrine works, we're talking about how *you* know he was not "genuine" in his beliefs, at least to the extent that any religious leader has. Our personal opinions have exactly zero bearing on the historical questions.

My implication here is that hearing what I've said from ex-Muslims should be more convincing. If not, then we're no where. If you'd like to believe that Islam is valid, and that Mohammad's mish-mash of Gnostic, Judaic, and other proto-Christian beliefs coupled with revisionist prophecies in hindsight, then I'm at a loss as to how to show you the truth.

If you're at a loss from where to go from here, then you've been at a loss since square one. You haven't provided anything that doesn't appear to be modern hearsay or propaganda. Your personal opinion counts for nothing, historically speaking.

I don't believe Islam is "valid," nor would I "like to" even if it was. I believe it's a contradictory mess of outdated mythology. It shares this in common with every religion. You, on the other hand, seem to be willing to put some under the microscope of your harsh judgement, while giving others a free pass on "hermeneutical" grounds - no further argument provided.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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 would have gone with the "When I brought you to your uncle Owen and aunt Beru, Owen agreed to raise you under the one condition that I promise to never tell about your father's Jedi history or his falling to the dark side of the force."

That gives the Obi-Wan the honorable knight an "out" of following the prior promise he made to Owen. Once uncle Owen and and aunt Beru are incinerated by blaster fire and flamethrower (by order of dear old daddy), Obi-Wan was technically freed from his oath.

But, at least Yoda should have told him. There was no reason to surprise Luke in the throws of battle with the moral confusion of "I'm your father, do you really want to kill me." This same Jedi father that Luke had idolized his whole life. "Wait, dad, why are you wearing the bad guy costume?" Therapy ensues.

Actually, knowing the real story... Let's just chock it up to bad writing.

[kandrathe]

We're talking about Mohammed.

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.