Apostates of Islam

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Heresson:

Nope. I know religion is something very important in the construction of collective mentalities, and it has a very longlasting influence even on societies that have sopped being religious.

However, as you know, religion is closely intertwined with tradition. Most Christian or Jewish beliefs of today have nothing to do with the obvious literal message contained in the scripture. And that's fortunate, considering that a part of this scripture (mostly, some parts of the Old Testament) are outrageous to our modern minds.

When religion poses a problem, it doesn't really come from scripture, but from the religious beliefs that are held in its name. When the mainstream religion has an enlightened interpretation of the scripture (such as dismissing calls to genocide or to public stoning, for example), it poses much fewer problems than when it's mainstream to accept all or most of the scripture literally.

Christianty and Judaism are less plagued by fundamentalism than Islam (although I think any Christian should be really watchful of what's happening in the US and subsaharian Africa). Islam suffers more from the school of thought that scripture should be observed literally.

Thus, the difference between western and Arabic socieites doesn't come merely from scripture (the OT is worse than the koran anyway), but from the use of scripture by the religionists (there's a boatload of other cultural factors that have nothing to do wth religion as well, but they're for another thread). Scripture and religion isn't the same thing.

For the most part Spiffor - well said.

If people could realize that when most scripture was written, the world and its ways were much different.
There are some Christian denominations that believe it is a sin for a woman to cut her hair because of a passage in 1st Corinthians.
Paul was talking to ancient Greeks and it would take not only a study of that society but also that paticular city state to understand why he might have said that.
I will say that some of the authors of scriptural texts are brilliant people. Sandskrit, Bible, Tao etc.
I agree with you - get the meaning behind the words and quite getting stuck on the words and you will gain much from some of the keenest and brightest minds that have graced our world.
Especially and including Jesus.

[Dinner]

Ramo, you know I already said I made a mistake and the source was not the Koran. Muhammad, true to form, tried to hide his crimes just as he destroyed the original treaty of Medina and had his followers substitute a obviously fake treaty. I already said this and I can only guess that you keep harping on this one case because you have nothing else to support your contention that Muhammad wasn't a filthy thief, rapist, and mass murder.

I've shown a great many crimes commited by Muhammad and which are perfectly allowed, even encouraged, by the Koran killing nonbelievers, raiding & bandatry, murder, raping women, beating wives, Muhammad's pediophilia, the genocide of the Jews of Arabia, and several other things. You avoided all but one of those charges. I guess you just don't have anything to combat the truth about the other half dozen or else you would have done so.

Just face the facts Muhammad was an evil and immoral man who deserves to be remember as the same type of person as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam. That he codified the commiting of these crimes in the Koran is why Islam is the worst & most violent of the monotheistic religions.

[Ramo]

Excuse me, but the argument we were having was over the genocide of Jews in Medina. Not anything else. That's the entireity of it.

I'm not addressing every detail that you've brought up because it'd add that much more to the time I'd waste on this thread (and Imran and others are already doing it, anyways). It takes a lot less time to post BS articles with improperly translated and out-of-context quotes than it is to refute them.

[Dinner]

The articles talk about the ubiquitous "improperly translated" defense as well. Read them they provide dozens of different translations just because the first line of defense for every defender of Islam is that anything bad about Muhammad or the Koran is the result of a mistranslation

Just face the facts. This isn't the result of some mistranslation it is the result of having a raving homicidal lunatic write barbarically violent crap.

[Ramo]

Sorry, but Imran has already called you on some of those quotes. You'd seem a lot more reasonable if you'd address his criticisms instead of repeating bald assertions.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
Pliny the Younger

Not contemporary with Jesus. All he does is states that there were Christians in Rome after 100 AD. Well duh, nobody disputed that. That doesn't prove anything other than that there were Christians around 100 AD.

Suetonius

Ditto.

Lucian

Ditto.

Tacitus

Ditto

Josephus

You omitted the response to this when you copied the source from wikipedia (you do know it is bad form to cut n paste without giving a source, don't you?)

While the passage is often cited as proof of Jesus' existence, most critical scholars hold that it is a forgery or has at least been heavily edited by a later hand. Several reasons are given for this. First, the text contains several hapax legomena, which is often evidence of a different author. Second, the text as it stands could only have been written by a Christian, not a Jew like Josephus. Third, the logical flow between two paragraphs is interrupted by the "Jesus passage", though it must be admitted that Josephus' logical flow is not always exemplary in the rest of his writings.

Herod and Pilate

Fraudulent texts, both. You're dishonesty here is obvious, since it clearly states in the article that you plagiarized that this was the case:

Virtually all scholars dispute the attribution of the texts to Herod or Pilate, and consider them pure (and obvious) propaganda. Early commentators stated that Justus had no mention of Jesus. Both pagan leaders are depicted as fervent Christians in contrast with the picture given by history; furthermore, the details of the deaths in Herod's family or the crumbling of statues of the emperors do not conform with historical reality. Even stylistically, Pilate would have been unlikely to refer to "Justinus, one of the writers that were in the days of Augustus and Tiberius and Gaius", when he himself was from that time. The additional sources seem to be completely out of place, and even suggest doctrines that were far from widespread in the early Church. Finally, Pilate's character as it appears in the letter shows no relation to the image that history paints of him.

I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously when you play such dishonest games.

No serious scholar doubts the existence of the historical Jesus.

This is simply false, and the article you plagiarized clearly states as such. There is indeed a scholarly debate over the existence of Jesus. Scholars who doubt his existence are certainly in the minority, but claiming they are not "serious" is bull.

The reason no serious scholar doubts the existence of a historical Jesus is because you (based on this logic) would have to deny the existence of Caeser, Alexander the Great, Darius, etc. There is more historical textual proof for Jesus than Caeser crossing the Rubicon.

This is a distortion. We do have first-hand corraborative evidence for the existence of all three men. For Caesar, we have contemporary statues and monuments, coinage, and scores of contemporary Roman documents about him. For Alexander and Darius, we also have abundant archaeological evidence in the form of monuments, inscriptions, coins, etc.

Nothing of the kind exists for Jesus. Not a scrap. We only have the gospels, which are accounts written many decades after the supposed events took place and by authors whose true identity we don't know.

[DinoDoc]

Are you people through pwning the bigot yet?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are you people through pwning the bigot yet?

You are such a funny little man.

Me: Muhammad commited many evil acts and the Koran is filled with remarks extolling the faithful to commit violence.

DD: You are a bigot!

Me: Here, here, and here are examples of crimes Muhammad commited and here are some more quotes of the Koran extolling people to commit acts of violence. Please note Muhammad is a bad man for what he did not who he was.

DD: You are a bigot!

Me: OK, we'll try again. Here are yet more examples of horrible things Muhammad did and here is yet more quotes of him commanding followers to commit terrible crimes. Yet again I must say he was a bad man for what he did not because of his religion.

DD: You are a bigot.

Why do I wast time with you? You never actually respond to anything and just keep repeating the same tired and refuted claims. Now I know why you have such a bad reputation.

Ramo: I responded very fully to Imran please learn to keep up with the debate.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not contemporary with Jesus. All he does is states that there were Christians in Rome after 100 AD. Well duh, nobody disputed that. That doesn't prove anything other than that there were Christians around 100 AD.

How were there Christians in Rome with no Christ?

You omitted the response to this when you copied the source from wikipedia (you do know it is bad form to cut n paste without giving a source, don't you?)

I did say I quoted the source and did not give the source, you are right. It was easier than looking in my books. I will give the source from now on if I get it on the internet. That was the first time I have done that. It is because it is common in many books. So what?

Wikipedia is not the only source, and the information they used comes from other sources, should I track the other sources down to? That way I won`t miss anyone. This info is in hundreds of sources Boris.

Fraudulent texts, both. You're dishonesty here is obvious, since it clearly states in the article that you plagiarized that this was the case:

If you read my post again, you will see I did say it was weak, it is not known if it is fraudulent, that is you making an assumption. And again, I have the same information in say - Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Biblical Achaeology Society, etc. Should I mention every book that I have read to?

I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously when you play such dishonest games.

What are you talking about?

This is simply false, and the article you plagiarized clearly states as such. There is indeed a scholarly debate over the existence of Jesus. Scholars who doubt his existence are certainly in the minority, but claiming they are not "serious" is bull.

It is not false at all - name a respected scholar who does not believe in the historical Jesus. Good luck

This is a distortion. We do have first-hand corraborative evidence for the existence of all three men. For Caesar, we have contemporary statues and monuments, coinage, and scores of contemporary Roman documents about him. For Alexander and Darius, we also have abundant archaeological evidence in the form of monuments, inscriptions, coins, etc.

Nothing of the kind exists for Jesus. Not a scrap. We only have the gospels, which are accounts written many decades after the supposed events took place and by authors whose true identity we don't know.

Are you sure I am the one being dishonest?
We only have the evidence of thousands of Christians around the known Western World who were willing to die for their faith.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are such a funny little man.

You're the one providing endless entertainment to me so far. I wouldn't even presume to have even come close to doing the same. I tip my hat to you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
How were there Christians in Rome with no Christ?

I can't believe you would write this.

How were there worshippers of Osiris in Egypt with no Osiris?
How were there worshippers of Mithra in Persia with no Mithra?
How were there Hindus in India with no Vishnu?

Since this is your logic, I suppose you are a pantheist, yes? Any group's religious beliefs must be correct, by the fact that they exist?

I did say I quoted the source and did not give the source, you are right.

No, you didn't. You never said "I'm quoting a source." You cut and pasted with no attribution, which gives the impression it's your own writing. That's called plagiarism.

Wikipedia is not the only source, and the information they used comes from other sources, should I track the other sources down to? That way I won`t miss anyone. This info is in hundreds of sources Boris.

That's not the issue--the issue is that copied from a source and didn't cite it. What's more, you selectively omitted paragraphs from the source that undermined your argument. So you didn't source it because you knew that by doing so, you were "hiding" facts contrary to your claims.

If you read my post again, you will see I did say it was weak, it is not known if it is fraudulent, that is you making an assumption.

Bull****! Did you even read your own source?

"Virtually all scholars dispute the attribution of the texts to Herod or Pilate, and consider them pure (and obvious) propaganda."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"There exists a puerile correspondence consisting of a pretended Letter of Herod to Pilate and Letter of Pilate to Herod."

Even the Catholic church acknowledges these letters are frauds. They are quite obviously so. The only folks who believe these letters could possibly be genuine are fanatics who are desperate to prove their case.

What are you talking about?

Your dishonesty. I've cited two examples of it in this post alone. It's really unbecoming of one purporting to be a Christian.

It is not false at all - name a respected scholar who does not believe in the historical Jesus. Good luck

Respected by who? You? I've no doubt you have no respect for anyone who disagrees with your beliefs in this matter.

How about:

Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar
Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
Arthur Drews
John M. Robertson
Dr. Robert Price

To name a few. Thanks for the wish of luck, I'm sure that helped.

Are you sure I am the one being dishonest?

Yep. What was dishonest in what I said?

We only have the evidence of thousands of Christians around the known Western World who were willing to die for their faith.

So? We have people in every faith who are willing to die for it. People are willing to die for even non-religious beliefs. The fact that people will die for a cherished belief is not evidence that the belief is true. Same fallacy as the first comment you made.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're the one providing endless entertainment to me so far. I wouldn't even presume to have even come close to doing the same. I tip my hat to you.

Once again avoiding the issues. I described your silly games quote well and you don't even bother to refute it. I guess even you know that your a troll. You called me a name but you can't back it up. That is so classically DinoDoc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I responded very fully to Imran please learn to keep up with the debate.

Actually you didn't. Nice try though. Ignore the points and then say you dealt with them. Won't fly with me, but if it makes your wittle bigotted head fweel betwer.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Once again avoiding the issues. I described your silly games quote well and you don't even bother to refute it. I guess even you know that your a troll. You called me a name but you can't back it up.

Imagine that. Trolling a troll thread. Who'da thunk it?

[Dinner]

Boris, I think most scholars would say that there was a man named Jesus but that his followers lied about him creating mericles and likely changed many of the things he said in order to make him seem more divine. The aposiles made their living off of extolling the virtues of Christ so they had a built in motivation to change facts and make Christ look better then he was in life.