Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's your interpretation, Oerdin. Many Islamic believers and clerics hold it otherwise.

These who are less religious

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Vince278


All muslim women could try withholding sex until they get equal rights.

Then, you'd see quite some limps under eyes from burkas.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
I hate these threads that become page long before I visit Poly again!
So I have to limit myself to isolated posts.
Anyway:

Good post

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sava
What about Native Americans before 1492 and everyone who lived before Jesus Christ? They didn't know about Jesus. Are they in hell just because they never knew about him?

That's a question I've been asking myself too

See Christianity is bull**** because supposedly all you need to get into heaven is faith. So Hitler could just have faith in Jesus and still go to heaven. Sorry, but that's too much of a loophole.

Salvation through faith is protestant. Catholic tradition prefers good deeds.

[Natalinasmpf]

See Christianity is bull**** because supposedly all you need to get into heaven is faith. So Hitler could just have faith in Jesus and still go to heaven. Sorry, but that's too much of a loophole.

It surprises me how athiests are all for "logic" and "compassion", then think that people who truly have faith (thus mending their ways) shouldn't go to heaven.

What loophole?

When you have faith (and deeds to back them up), you have are on the path to righteousness. I think you people are too much on anger and revenge to realise that everyone are still human beings. Hitler was a human being. IF he took up faith, complemented with deeds, and probably paid any punishment due on Earth, thus becoming on the path to righteousness, that would be best, no?

Or if he had taken up faith BEFORE he had become so deeply self-deceiving? Isn't that best? Faith would quell the hate.

For the last time, its not a loophole, its a great gift. Perhaps you people are way to self-righteous?

What about Native Americans before 1492 and everyone who lived before Jesus Christ? They didn't know about Jesus. Are they in hell just because they never knew about him?

Not really....in Israel, for example, if they comitted a sin, they showed their repentance by conducting a sin offering. Now that Christ is here, it has become redundant, but I usually think God will usually touch everyone's lives, even those very far away.

If you did not know, the ancient Chinese have words that seem to be close to Christ, even way before his birth. If you did not realise, "righteousness" in Chinese used to be the pictorial equivalent of the sheep over the altar, until of course, Mao Zedong decided to change this.

[Ramo]

That's not a wise post.
They have had female chiefs of state of whatever because these women were wife, dotters or whoever of former vhiefs of state. they inherited this position, weren't given it by society

No, they were elected to their positions by the people of their respective states.

And while some may have relied on some family connections to become Prime Minister (which hardly proves anything other than that there are some dynastic elements in demoracies: note Shrub instance), others have not. Sheikh Hassina, for instance, who was Bangladesh's PM for several years (both replacing, and being replaced by another woman) had no family connections to former heads of state. The current PM, Zia, also happens to be a woman, and Hassina is the current opposition leader.

So, actually, yours wasn't a wise post.

These who are less religious

No, some of the most deeply religious Muslims that I know are among the most tolerant.

[Heresson]

So, actually, yours wasn't a wise post.

Sorry, I admit I was wrong, then.
Oh, and I just recalled Tansu Ciller.

These who are less religious

No, some of the most deeply religious Muslims that I know are among the most tolerant.

I don't know your friends, so I can't discuss that point. I also don't know what You mean by "tolerant".
But I'm not tied to that point, it was just a thought. You know, if I try to put myself in a Muslim situation, there are two sollutions to the sad state Muslim world is in. Modernisation and fundamentalism. By modernisation, however, You may understand simple technical modernisation, or modernisation ("modernisation") of the society. Muslim fundamentalists are not amishes. They use technological thought of the West - against it. When it comes to the modernisation of the society... Well, it definitely IS against Islam. Because Islam is not only, like Christianity, a theology and a basic ethic compass. It is a detailed guide - that to many today seems unfit. Of course, some may try to prove that islam is not against modernisation of the society, but I found those attemps unsuccessful. I wish they were. But my view in those matters is that those, who try to modernise islam, are not going back to its roots or something, they are trying to change it in the name of their view of religion and morality, that is stimulated by sources allien to islam - mostly western culture of today.And I can hardly imagine they aren't aware of that. That's why i think they are less pius.
And well, a fundamentalist is always the most religious.

[Ramo]

By tolerant, I mean respecting others' beliefs, treating women and gay people as equals, etc.

I'm curious, where do you get this view that secular (a more apt word, IMO, than "modernized") Muslims are impious? How many Muslims do you personally know? I'm guessing that I have a better perspective since just about my entire family is Muslim.

As for where one gets their inspiration for secularism, I don't see how it's impious to look towards the West (though tolerance is enshrined in the Qur'an, so there's plenty of religious justification for it). The founders of Islamism like Qutb had taken many of their ques from the West (as Berman would point out), are you going to argue that Islamism is impious as well? Then where would that leave Islam, if both a secular and Islamist form of Islam are impious?

[Heresson]

Well, there;s a sollution: there are no good Muslims in this world.

I know...
1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... Muslims I think, or more,
I just recalled 2 more. And one more. And even one more.
2-4 of them are ammongst people I really like.

Well, perhaps it's a general - I don't know if it's true or know - theory that people in modern society are becoming more and more secular. And secularity does have a link to impiety or whatever is it called.
Modernisation is acting against religion, or it might seem so in people's mind. It is because until there were discoveries in some parts of sciences, problems of it were being solved by religion, on base of religious texts, or just a belief or a tradition popular in the days of forming a religion such as Christianity for example, became treaten as part of the religious teachings. In another words, religion was used to solve all the problems of the world.
Now, science does it better. That's one.
Secondly, people, to keep their position in the society, are forced to become more and more competitive, and it does force some behaviours. I'm far from such theories as one Muslim in fact scholar, I think his surname was Shakir (the book was about monotheistic tradition in Arabia before Islam), pointed out, that it was the lazyness or whatever we call that of people that made monotheistic thought start (because it was easier to worship first all gods at one time, and later one God, than to worship hungreds of gods), but there is a point, and perhaps the next step would be atheism. Yet, it's easy. People that are forced by religion to some behaviour that lower their worth at work (like more days off or whatever) have less chance to get a better job. Many will be satisfied with a worse job, but many will break their religious convictions to assure better life today.
And by the way of Shakir, don't You think his thoughts are far from being pious? He claimed at the start of his work, that it's only theory or something like that, but...
for me, such attitude to religion, which indeed is needed in modern works, practically means atheistic attitude to religion.

And so on.
One important note: these are not my convictions Actually I don't know if I have any convications. These are just thoughts, a theory that may be right but could be wrong

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The biblical passage does not make such a distinction. In fact, they reject the interpretation that such census was done by a local or provincial authority, but rather issued by the Emperor.

Why would the Emperor issue a census only for Judea? It makes much more sense that they would be conducted empire-wide.

Why did they rebel in 70 BC, and then get crushed by the Romans?

Of course not. Samaria is not Judaea. Herod has no authority over Pilate.

Even Pravda has references to outside events that can be corroborated, which is what we are doing here. So no dice Molly.

You have failed to prove even Luke wrong in his testimony as to the date of the birth of Christ, and there are plenty more references throughout!

Even Matthew, you have not found evidence to the contrary, to disprove what he has said, or an alternative account of the events cited in Matthew, that can be used to test whether or not Matthew corroborates with other historical sources.

And by the way, your beloved Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written by a fervent Catholic priest. Why should we trust what he has to say? Why should you trust a Christian in one aspect of history, yet not trust the Gospel writers?

Oh dear, Obi Gyn, still having trouble sorting out the difference between a mythical, legendary narrative and a historical chronicle.

Would you agree there is a difference between Suetonius’s ‘Lives of the Caesars’ and Tacitus’s ‘Annals’, on the one hand, and Ovid’s 'Metamorphoses' and Petronius’s ‘Satyricon’ on the other?

The former, however hagiographic you might think, however much they propagandize for particular emperors, are still purporting to relay facts. Historical facts. Things that actually occurred, in real time to real people, for whom in many cases, we have supporting evidence for their existence, and for which events we also have corroborative evidence.


The latter are telling stories.

In the case of 'The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ for instance, compare a relatively dry chronicle of dates and events, with another work of Anglo-Saxon literature, this time, a poem about a hero, and the hero’s combat with a monster and the monster’s mother. Can you spot the difference between the Chronicle and 'Beowulf'?

Or compare Xenophon’s ‘Anabasis’ with any of the varying different versions of Greek myths told and retold by Greek poets and dramatists- one is implying that the narrative is based on what really happened, the others are spinning tales.

Now when it comes to history, because you are unsure of your ground, you have a lot of would haves, should haves, might haves, but little evidence to support your assertions. In point of fact you make assertions and then have to backtrack, when informed that historical evidence doesn’t accommodate itself to your beliefs.

It’s evident that Roman history isn’t your thing- or Jewish history, or as far as I can tell, much of any other kind of history.

What was the point of the Roman census, and who carried out one, with what results?

A census in Roman terms dated back to the early Republic, when such a registration would be made to calculate the number of Roman CITIZENS in Rome the city, the Italian peninsula, and PROVINCES of Rome where it was feasible or possible to carry out such a census (which excluded for instance, Pannonia and Noricum and Illyria, because of their unpacified nature).

The census provided a register of Roman CITIZENS for military service, and an idea of the numbers for taxation.

It was conducted by censors, and generally held by a provincial/local administrator- in Gaul we know of 4 such censuses, dating from 27 B.C. , and including 12 B.C. , 14 A. D. and 61 A.D. .

Local census. Get it?

Egypt had had a similar census under the Ptolemies, an important source of fund raising for such a wealthy country- one would be taken every 14 years. The same kind of census had also occurred in Asia Minor.

The Jews revolt in 6 A.D. because it’s new to them- Judaea is NOW a Roman PROVINCE, following the removal of the ethnarch Archelaus, and is subject to direct Roman taxation, and was so until A.D. 41.

Even, let’s say, Quirinius governor of Syria did carry out a census in Judaea, why would it have affected the narrative of the Lucan story?

You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between the different territories at the time, and which town or village was where. Here’s a clue- Nazareth was in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas- he ruled his territory from 4 B. C. until 39 A. D. , an area encompassing Galilee and Peraea .

It was not in the Roman province of Judaea.


You seem to be getting your Herods in a twist by the way. There’s a difference between King Herod the Great, the ethnarch Archelaus, the tetrarch Herod Antipas, and King Herod Agrippa.

Pay attention, I may be asking questions later.

The alleged massacre of the innocents is all that many people know of in relation to Herod the Great (and even then, they may also be confusing this Herod with his son Antipas, or even Herod Agrippa).

Such a horror story has the persistence of all such juicy myths or legends- and that is precisely what it is- a myth, legendary, folkloric- like your assertion that three pagan priest astrologers from Parthia were kings.

An early mediaeval legend, designed I have no doubt to bolster the Christ narrative with its relation to earlier ‘prophetic’ remarks in Jewish Old Testament texts, as you yourself inadvertently noted.

It offers an analogy or link with the Midrash of the rescue of Moses (deliverer of the Chosen People from bondage) from the general slaughter of the Hebrews' children. There are similar stories of the miraculous deliverance of children contained in Suetonius’s 'Lives of the Caesars', specifically Augustus and (oh, the irony) Nero.

There are similarities as I’ve noted with pagan Greek myths, with Indian Hindu mythology, and there are even mediaeval child martyrdoms as recounted by mediaeval chroniclers such as Mathew Paris.

If you had bothered to do as I asked, and actually read any of the history that is known of Herod the Great, you might just have chanced upon the fact that several events in the later years of his reign were probably the basis for this legend being retold- by people antipathetic to the memory of an Idumaean monarch (as many Jews and Christians were).

You also seem to be unaware of the error regarding the alleged date of the nativity- an error ascribable to the Slavic monk, Dionysus Exiguus. Still, no mind.

So, other than the claims in Luke what evidence do you have of an alleged Empire wide census at the supposed date of birth of Jesus?

What other evidence do you have for the supposed massacre of Jewish children under Herod the Great than that contained in one gospel?

Anything from Josephus, perhaps, Herod’s antipathetic biographer?

Nope.

All we have to back up your assertion and Matthew’s version of history, is the rather lame:

‘well it fits in with Herod’s character.’

History may very well have overlooked massacres of innocents then, by Augustus, Caligula, Tiberius, the last Cleopatra to rule Egypt, many of her predecessors, assorted Ottoman sultans, various Mogul Emperors, innumerable European monarchs and so on and so on, not to mention of course, many of Herod’s contemporary sovereigns.

What you offer isn’t evidence or historical proof- it’s simply wishful thinking and conjecture.

Now as regards Jewish revolts- I think you’re about as knowledgeable about these as you are Herodian massacres, the Roman census, or sorting your kingly Herods from your tetrarchs.

Would you like to stick with 70 B. C. , or take a gamble, and change that to 70 A. D. ?

You’d still be wrong, because the uprising known as the First Jewish War (to the Romans) or First Roman War (to the Jews) or Revolt against the Romans occurred in 66 A. D.

Perhaps you’re thinking of Vespasian’s son Titus, capturing Jerusalem and destroying the Temple. In 70 A. D. .

Or perhaps not.

Now why would I trust a chronicler even if they were a monk? Because a chronicler rather than an evangelist or fabulist may still be right. Even a broken clock may tell the correct time, twice a day.

'your beloved Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written by a fervent Catholic priest. '

As well as putting words in my mouth (I don't see me calling it beloved, do you?) this shows you also don't know much about 'The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' either.

[Dr Strangelove]

I wonder what fraction of Roman documents of that era have survived until today? Take into consideration there has been a lot of turmoil in Judea over the past 2000 years, and that paper burns very easily.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

See Christianity is bull**** because supposedly all you need to get into heaven is faith. So Hitler could just have faith in Jesus and still go to heaven. Sorry, but that's too much of a loophole.

It surprises me how athiests are all for "logic" and "compassion", then think that people who truly have faith (thus mending their ways) shouldn't go to heaven.

Atheists are "pro" logic in the sense that they are opposed to blind faith (which, btw, is rendundant). I don't see the connection between atheism and compassion, though - atheism and morality are seperate things. Atheism is simply an empirical claim.

Anyway, the post you were responding to is actually, as it so aptly mentions, bull****. Agreement with the Christian morality has no bearing on the existance of God (or the lack thereof, as the case may be). However, I happen to agree that mere faith in (the existence of) God is a ridiculous moral standard.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

III reich was neo-pagan.

And why should we say these were "Christian wars"?

Was Iran-Iraq conflit a "Muslim war?


Perhaps because they do not intend to kill people of other religions, and their goals have more in common with nationalism than with religion?

But it's a secular organisation, isn't it?
You're hitting the void. no-one claims only Muslims can be terrorists. But the problem is that terrorism is becoming very popular ammongst radical muslim-political movements. And You can't compare it to any radical Christian movement.

I think most Latin American regimes isn't reigning in the name of religion. I don't know much about Guatemala, it's sad if it's true. But it has no religious sanction from Christian organisations.

It's internal Christian struggle, hungreds of years ago

If you think the Third Reich's official faith was neo-paganism, I suggest you prove it.

Until then I'll stick with what we know from history- the collaboration of German Protestants with the State in anti-semitic campaigns was nothing new- nor should I add is anti-semitism from the German Catholic side.

Perhaps you'd care to read Martin Luther's 'On the Jews and Their Lies'-

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html

to get an idea of some of the roots of religious anti-semitism.

The Holocaust can be seen in one light as an end product of institutionalized, culturally and religiously acceptable anti-semitism, magnified in its effects by modern techniques and military application.

It even had a strange outgrowth in the German far left groups opposed to N.A.T.O., the West German Republic and the State of Israel:

"Auschwitz heisst, das sechs Millionen Juden ermordet und auf die Mullkippen Europas gekarrt wurden als das, als was man sie ausgab- als Geldjuden."

Ulrike Meinhof, testimony at the trial of Horst Mahler, Dec. 1972, quoted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Note that charming turn of phrase- Geldjuden- money Jews.

This is not to say there was no opposition to the Nazi regime from Christians, or Christian organisations, but you're a long way from showing that the Third Reich was neo-pagan.

My point which you clearly seem to miss or misinterpret, is that Western Christian historians do not write about either of the World Wars from the point of view of wars between Christian states, nor are any of the Imperialist expansionist wars of the 19th Century viewed explicitly as Christian wars, because although prosecuted by avowedly Christian nations, such as Belgium, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, they are seen as having political ends.

The missionary religious aspects are just the cherry on the cake. In some cases, of course, missionary activity preceded colonial or imperial intervention.

Entirely coincidentally, of course.

What many people choose not to do is differentiate between a hijacker or terrorist who is a Muslim and one who carries out their action FOR Islam.

To some people they're the same, which self-evidently they are not.

Even having said that, a devout Muslim may still feel sufficiently aggrieved by a perceived political injustice to carry out an action with an avowedly secular end in mind. That doesn't make the action any more Islamic.

Various Palestinian liberation groups dating from the 70s as I've noted, were Marxist-Leninist and secular.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was avowedly secular, as is Syria.

Now I have to say with regard the activities of the I.R.A. and the other Catholic Republican terror groups and the Protestant Unionist terror groups, you are sadly misinformed.

Take a look at the database of deaths provided by Project CAIN and look at who is killing whom.

The fact that the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland took sides a long time ago is not denied- the separation of the two communities into sectarian blocs is aided and abetted and encouraged by their respective churches, a point you seem to be missing. The Catholic hierarchy do not do all that they could in religious terms to discipline mass murderers who are Catholic- and yet seek to apply religious discipline to women seeking abortions in Great Britain, even women who have been raped, sexually abused or subject to incestuous attacks.

Yes, E.T.A. is an organisation dedicated to a secular aim- but how many non-Catholics are in it?

The struggle in Central America, had you bothered to read the second quote from the unnamed pastor, has a religious dimension too- Catholic peasants and priests, suspected of favouring 'Liberation theology' are the target of a regime headed by a fundamentalists Evangelical Protestant.

Again, you seem to be forgetting something, by just brushing these and other historical conflicts aside as 'internal Christian conflicts'-

how do those Christian teachings go? Oh, yes,

'thou shalt not kill' and 'vengeance is mine, saith the Lord'.

Oh, and one reason the Muslim Arabs were welcomed by Christian Arabs during the spectacular outgrowth of Islam, is the oppression visited upon Christians by their fellow Byzantine Christians, who didn't approve of the way Monophysite or Nestorian or Jacobite Christians worshipped and were at pains to show them this- by killing them.

It's really entirely irrelevant to wonder how long Christianity had been in Rwanda or Burundi- the point is that a Christian hierarchy not only tolerated, but took an active part in genocide.

Then, people wanted in questioning with regards to these war crimes and crimes against humanity, were shielded by another Christian hierarchy outside the country.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Where did you see this UR?

If the insertation occurred, which parts are inserted? Or could it be a page missing from the manuscript?

The knowledge here compresses the kerygma, the earliest formulation of the Christian message by the author of the Gospel of Mark and the apostle Paul. However, because it has an explicit acceptance of Jesus as Messiah [Christ] and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe that this passage is a Christian interpolation AND thereby a forgery. [Josephus was a Jew working for the Romans] There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection.

“Probably the most damning evidence against the Josephus passages is that the two interpolated passages do not appear in Origen's second-century version of Antiquities. Origin was locked in a fierce debate with the Platonic philosopher Celsus over the merits of Christianity in Origen Contra Celsum (Origen against Celsus) and although Origen quotes freely from Antiquities to support Christianity, he never once used either of these passages instead remarking that 'Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.'" - James Still, "Biblical and Extra-biblical Sources for Jesus"

link

An important point to note that Antiquities was a record about the Israelis, and Josephus himself was a Jew. So why would he be so reverent towards a Jesus of Nezareth, even calling him the Christ? It simply is absurd.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
It surprises me how athiests are all for "logic" and "compassion", then think that people who truly have faith (thus mending their ways) shouldn't go to heaven.

What are you going on about?

Atheism is separate from compassion. Atheism is not a worldview, it simply denotes the absence of belief in a god or a pantheon of gods, specifically wrt Judeo-Christianity (and Islam).

However, since atheists do not believe in the existence of a heaven, certainly we do not believe people would go to heaven after they died. That's just a logical extension.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
When you have faith (and deeds to back them up), you have are on the path to righteousness.

That's just a bald assertion.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
I think you people are too much on anger and revenge to realise that everyone are still human beings.

A thinly veiled ad hominem.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Or if he had taken up faith BEFORE he had become so deeply self-deceiving? Isn't that best? Faith would quell the hate.

Really? If that is the case, there wouldn't be any of the Crusades, Inquisition, or witch-hunts. Protestants would not clash with Catholics and Moslems would not fight Christians.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
If you did not know, the ancient Chinese have words that seem to be close to Christ, even way before his birth. If you did not realise, "righteousness" in Chinese used to be the pictorial equivalent of the sheep over the altar, until of course, Mao Zedong decided to change this.

What on earth are you talking about? Which character are you referring to?