Apostates of Islam

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's obvious to me just as it is obvious for you, and for about any sensible person who has some understanding for Jesus' message.

It's not obvious for the "Christians" who oppose gay marriage on the grounds of Leviticus 20:13, for example*

Granted those "Christians" are simply bigots flailing abut trying to some justification for their bigotry. If they would read more of what Jesus taught (as a good Proteatant is supposed to) then they'd know how wrong they are.

[Az]

As for Jews (essentially) being in origin Canaanites, I fully agree. I think thats the best explanation for the contradictions in the exodus story, as well as various linguistic and archaelogical data.

Ah, now this is the issue I like to love.

Well, I'd slightly soften my words, and in the same spirit, praise the torah for its amazing historical accuracy. How'd you like that?

If we look at the Hebrews, we get the following picture, what traits belong where:

Language, Culture, Pottery, Alphabet: all of those are clearly Canaanite.

However, the most ancient of fables, for example, the story of Caine and Avel (sp?), all of these show a distinct nomadic bias.

The probable picture that shows up through the mist of the old book is, IMHO, this:

A semi-nomadic family, that could've originated on the outskirts of mesopotamia, probably by a decision of the head of the family, given the extremely rigid patriarchal structure that these societies have, has decided to settle down in Canaan, in the town ( at the time probably nothing more than a small village surrounded by a rather low wall ) of Jerusalem, after having allied with the villagers previously, against fighting other kings ( other heads of villages. We're talking hundreds of people here, max, IMO). We're bordering prehistoric times here, btw. The priests of the village introduce the family to El, at which point the two communities merge ( I don't think that a violent takeover by the nomads is too possible, since we'd have some strong clues to it ) . The worship of El grows, and slowly, El displaces all the gods from the pantheon - won't be the first time such a thing happens. However, in other, smaller villages, that just got captured by a fledgeling kingdom, the cults of other canaanite gods are still going strong: the oh-so-hated Baal and Ashera, El's son ( one of 70, btw) and wife, are still a competition to El, and it's cult is being persecuted mercilessly.

Some **** hits the fan with Egypt - I am still not sure what, I am thinking about it, how to explain the whole Joseph capture, and ascent to the role of the first prime, or whatever. It's possible that Egypt actively captured the area, and instead of just asking for tribute, as usual, they appointed an administrator, who then climbed the imperial ranks, in some way. The whole "Joseph makes his dad to live in egypt, then people become slaves stripped of their culture for tens of generations, yet then come out as a united people" story is very thin. Plus if the were just 70 people, as Torah claims, when they arrived, how the hell was this a significant number to any slaving operation. Remember, only a couple of years passed from "70 Israelites coming to Egypt" to "Israelites building stuff and being flogged". doesn't hold water.

[Az]

Actually, El was a Sumerian god. Abrahm came from Sumeria, specifically Ur, if Scripture is to be believed. As for Jews originally being from Canaan, well, who else was Abrahm's family gonna marry?

No, sorry, che. El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, the father of Baal, and the husband of Ashera.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm trying to explain Oerdin that all dogmas, when followed literally, suck donkey balls. The barbary he finds in Islam is nothing exceptional. The OT has the same, and even worse (Islam had actually a rather progressive worldview at the time it was written)

I agree that all dogmas suck and should be shunned. I also agree that some parts of Islam were progressive for the 7th century even if many of those progressive parts were controdicted in other parts of the Koran or the Hadeth. If the Islamic legal system were reformed so that it was no longer barbaric then most of the religion's problems would be solved but there is still the passages which OBL and others quote to support terrorism, extremism, and the killing of nonmuslims.

I'd love to see changes made so at least innocent people are no longer stoned to death like that video shows. I'd still have problems with Islam's mistreatment of women but at least if we stopped the unjust murders things would be better.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

As for Jews (essentially) being in origin Canaanites, I fully agree. I think thats the best explanation for the contradictions in the exodus story, as well as various linguistic and archaelogical data.

Ah, now this is the issue I like to love.

Well, I'd slightly soften my words, and in the same spirit, praise the torah for its amazing historical accuracy. How'd you like that?

If we look at the Hebrews, we get the following picture, what traits belong where:

Language, Culture, Pottery, Alphabet: all of those are clearly Canaanite.

However, the most ancient of fables, for example, the story of Caine and Avel (sp?), all of these show a distinct nomadic bias.

The probable picture that shows up through the mist of the old book is, IMHO, this:

A semi-nomadic family, that could've originated on the outskirts of mesopotamia, probably by a decision of the head of the family, given the extremely rigid patriarchal structure that these societies have, has decided to settle down in Canaan, in the town ( at the time probably nothing more than a small village surrounded by a rather low wall ) of Jerusalem, after having allied with the villagers previously, against fighting other kings ( other heads of villages. We're talking hundreds of people here, max, IMO). We're bordering prehistoric times here, btw. The priests of the village introduce the family to El, at which point the two communities merge ( I don't think that a violent takeover by the nomads is too possible, since we'd have some strong clues to it ) . The worship of El grows, and slowly, El displaces all the gods from the pantheon - won't be the first time such a thing happens. However, in other, smaller villages, that just got captured by a fledgeling kingdom, the cults of other canaanite gods are still going strong: the oh-so-hated Baal and Ashera, El's son ( one of 70, btw) and wife, are still a competition to El, and it's cult is being persecuted mercilessly.

Some **** hits the fan with Egypt - I am still not sure what, I am thinking about it, how to explain the whole Joseph capture, and ascent to the role of the first prime, or whatever. It's possible that Egypt actively captured the area, and instead of just asking for tribute, as usual, they appointed an administrator, who then climbed the imperial ranks, in some way. The whole "Joseph makes his dad to live in egypt, then people become slaves stripped of their culture for tens of generations, yet then come out as a united people" story is very thin. Plus if the were just 70 people, as Torah claims, when they arrived, how the hell was this a significant number to any slaving operation. Remember, only a couple of years passed from "70 Israelites coming to Egypt" to "Israelites building stuff and being flogged". doesn't hold water.

my storys a little different,


The canaanites live in the lowlands, and cities like Hazor, Jaffa, etc. Where commerce, including plantation agriculture prevails. Most people are peasants, whose corvee labor is exploited by a class of priest kings. The local kings, per the Amarna letters are subject to Egypt, adopt some egyptian culture, and even have contingents of egyptian troops present. At some point, as Egypt goes into its late Bronze age decline, many of the peasants flee to the hill country, where they establish a relatively egalitarian society where land reverts to the peasant owner every jubilee year. They pare down the Canaanite pantheon to a single god, who embodies there distinctive social views. They may absorb some seminomadic types from east of jordan, who have historic tendency to occasionally go sedentary anyway. They may even absorb some semitic slaves escaped from Egypt (who MAY bring with them tales of a monotheist king called Akenaton) These disparate groups join in a covenant, perhaps at Shechem, where a covenant between different groups is recorded in the book of Joshua, IIRC.

This would account for the continuity with Canaanite culture, but also the social ethic, and also the exodus story (Most of the exodus story referring in fact to life in the Canaanite cities, and to flight from them, getting confused with a parallel story of fugite slaves from Egypt).

Also ties in with later history - the kings of Israel, once they capture the low country, revert to trade and plantation agricutlure, and to corvee labor (to your tents, oh Israel!) and to an oppressive state, and to the Canaanite pantheon. The Prophets attempt to fight back and defend the old hill country ways, eventually triumphing during the Babylonian exile.

Only thing inconvenient is that the low country, with its international trade ties (Tel aviv, silicon wadi?) is the socially oppressive canaanite place, while the hill country - Judea and Samaria - is the authentic home of Jewish civilization

[Az]

This is an interesting version: The El-Amarna letters sure shed a healthy dose of light on all of this, however they also raise even more questions.

Why don't I like your story, which is, admittedly around the concensus today?
-The miss on the importance of Jerusalem from the earliest of times.
-No emphasis on the nomadic nature of Abraham and the other ancients.

The egalitarian society is not a problem - It's actually the natural state of the semi-prehistoric canaanites together with the sedentary tribe. It's the overwhelming emphasis on the nomadic in the life of the ancients that puzzles me.

And the Geography as well - The coastal towns are not mentioned until some time into the Tanah. I think they don't appear in the Torah, at all. In the Torah period, I think they were Phoencian ( another bunch of well-developed Canaanites ) , and the Torah doesn't have any hostility towards them, at all.

Also, the later story always sircles around the environs of Jerusalem. This place has one of the most ancient agricultural terrace systems in the world - No place for a bunch of nomads - that's why Abraham always hung around Beer Sheva, on the frontier, on the border of the desert.

This complete blend between the frontier society and the agricultural settlement shows that the merger must've happened very early on, and that it was relatively peaceful. And the relative clarity of the detail, and the consistency ( yet implausibility) of the story means that there was a healthy doze of clerics rewriting this peace of paper many times - after all, at that time, this was one of the most literate places on the planet. Of course, the clerics could've rewritten the story a lot of time later ( think post split Judea), but I am sure that the core was correct. You can't completely rewrite a well known scroll.

[Az]

Btw, people, in case you wonder: that image of god as a bearded old man? That's El.


Canaanite mythology rules. It puts judaism in a fascinating perspective, and gives even more sense of sense ( sorry) to the history of our people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Bzzzt, not wrong. On page 4 Oerdin remarked that he thought that all 3 religions are made up, but continued to stick to the subject matter. Imran made a passing allusion to the fact that some people think that Jesus was fictional, then you come on with a 4 page diatribe on why you think that Christ didn't exist.

Nope, you omit a crucial post--Oerdin's response to Imran, which is what I responded to.

And "diatribe on why you think that Christ didn't exist" is a s surely a lie as any. I never claimed it was my point of view. I was stating what is believed by some scholars of the subject to refute the claim that "nobody" believed it. I've stated on this issue before that I do not have a definite opinion, though I find some theories more intriguing than others.

My remarks were closer to being on topic then yours, so they weren't irrelevant.

But they had nothing to do with what I was talking about, so bringing me into it was irrelevant.

Since the topic was (broadly) the morality of contemporary Islamic practises then my referrence to the way Islamic law treats one particular minority was within bounds of the discussion and therefore not offensive. If you must take offense take it against those who would execute you for merely being yourself.

You're weasling. You talked about shipping me to SA to teach me some kind of lesson:

Boris doesn't know the difference. Let's illustrate it to him by tieing him up and mailing him to Saudi Arabia, labelling him as "Gay Jewish Male".

And you said it based on erroneous assumption of what I was saying because you didn't bother to read the whole thread:

My remark serves to remind you that you'd rather live in a country politically dominated by Christian fundies than by Islamic fundies.

So now you're lying about what you were saying.

It is offensive that you think you need to teach me some sort of lesson about how bad an Islamic fundie state like SA treats homosexuals. I know more about that subject than you do, trust me. If you had wanted to make the point that SA hates gay people, there was no reason to do so by saying what you said about me. Got it?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Nope, you omit a crucial post--Oerdin's response to Imran, which is what I responded to.

And "diatribe on why you think that Christ didn't exist" is a s surely a lie as any. I never claimed it was my point of view. I was stating what is believed by some scholars of the subject to refute the claim that "nobody" believed it. I've stated on this issue before that I do not have a definite opinion, though I find some theories more intriguing than others.

No, you were responding to beingofone's post.

But they had nothing to do with what I was talking about, so bringing me into it was irrelevant.

But this isn't the "Did Jesus exist" thread.

You're weasling. You talked about shipping me to SA to teach me some kind of lesson:

Nope. Not weasling.

And you said it based on erroneous assumption of what I was saying because you didn't bother to read the whole thread:

Well you certainly seem to be refuting the idea of the existance of Jesus. I think that a reasonable person would certainly conclude that based upon the content of your posts.

So now you're lying about what you were saying.

Nope.

It is offensive that you think you need to teach me some sort of lesson about how bad an Islamic fundie state like SA treats homosexuals. I know more about that subject than you do, trust me. If you had wanted to make the point that SA hates gay people, there was no reason to do so by saying what you said about me. Got it?

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Very well, I apologise for drawing your attention to a matter you're well aware of even though I had no prior knowledge of your familiarity with the subject.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
No, you were responding to beingofone's post.

Wow, how could you be so wrong when you even mentioned the post I responded to in your own post above?

Page 5, about a third down is Oerdin's post. That is the one I initially responded to. Beingofone didn't post until page 7, and it was him jumping in on an already in-progress discussion.

But this isn't the "Did Jesus exist" thread.

Since when did you become the threadjacking nanny? Conversations lead to tangents. Get over it already.

Nope. Not weasling.

Oh? When you say this:

Boris doesn't know the difference. Let's illustrate it to him by tieing him up and mailing him to Saudi Arabia, labelling him as "Gay Jewish Male".

And

My remark serves to remind you that you'd rather live in a country politically dominated by Christian fundies than by Islamic fundies.

And try to explain it away by saying this:

Since the topic was (broadly) the morality of contemporary Islamic practises then my referrence to the way Islamic law treats one particular minority was within bounds of the discussion and therefore not offensive.

You are indeed weasling out of what you initially said.

I'll ask again: why did you feel the need to make such a comment with regards to me being shipped of to SA to be taught some sort of lesson? Was it to make some sort of noble plea on behalf of abused minority in SA, or was it a snide comment aimed at me and your erroneous assumption as to what I was arguing in this thread? Smart money's on the latter.

Just admit it: You stupidly assumed I was arguing the point that Islamic fundamentalism was somehow "not so bad" and made the statement out of your erroneous assumption. Is that so hard?

Well you certainly seem to be refuting the idea of the existance of Jesus. I think that a reasonable person would certainly conclude that based upon the content of your posts.

Except that I said I wasn't, and I confined my argument to the evidence for his existence, not what I believed. Most reasonable people would actually read the content of posts carefully before making such assumptions.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. Very well, I apologise for drawing your attention to a matter you're well aware of even though I had no prior knowledge of your familiarity with the subject.

Yes, as an intelligent gay man, I can see there's no reason to think I might be aware of what Islamic fundamentalism thinks of gay people or what conditions are like for gays in SA. Next, I suspect you'll be giving black people lectures on the horrors of slavery or teaching Jews what a nasty bit of business the Holocaust was, lest they be ignorant of those facts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Your imagination I presume.

You presume incorrectly: in Masschusetts in the 17th Century, one of the Christian Protestant colonies instituted a penal code in which the death penalty was provided for idolatry, blasphemy and adultery.

One man, a Captain Kimble, was put in the stocks for his 'lewd' behaviour. He had been at sea for three years, and on his return had kissed his wife. Unfortunately on a Sunday.

( The Roots of Evil: A Social History of Crime and Punishment, by Christopher Hibbert, publ. Penguin Books)

Breast rippers and oral, anal and vaginal pears were instruments of torture used on women accused of adultery (the breast ripper) and homosexuals (the anal pear) and women accused either of sexual congress with the Devil or his familiars. The oral pear was used on preachers accused of heresy, or lay persons found guilty of 'unorthodox' practices.

(Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide to the Exhibition of Torture Instruments From the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era, publ. Florence 1985)


Torture first appeared in England as an habitual redress of the courts in the reign of Edward II, at the insistence of the Church and Pope Clement V- it had previously been unknown in English Common Law.

The influence of the Catholic Church on the mainland legal systems and the blurring between canon law and civil law and the secular and sectarian realms meant that torture and punishment on the mainland of Europe usually outdid in severity similar punishments in England (although not in Scotland which has had a separate legal code).

It's noticeable that witch burnings in Scotland virtually ceased after the defeat of the Scots' Covenanters by English forces in the 17th Century

(Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England, by Christopher Hill, publ. Panther Books, 1969)

In 1231, Pope Gregory IX reserved the apprehension, trial and punishment of alleged heretics for teh Church and the Inquisition, removing their trial and punishment from the secular sphere.

Torture was authorised by Pope Innocent IV in 1251; although the Church and its agents could imprison, exile, alienate property and mutilate, they could not execute, so they simply turned over the accused to the usually helpful secular arm which did the job for them.

The excesses of most of the Continental legal systems (which had persisted since mediaeval times with the enthusiastic support of the Catholic Church) were only done away with after the success of Napoleon, when a more civilized set of legal codes were introduced.

Mutilation as a punishment for adultery had existed in England since the days of the Anglo-Saxon kings and in the reign of Canute, the punishment was forfeiture of both nose and ears for adultery.

On the one hand while the Christian church's influence ameliorated some of the effects of a legal code which had earlier been based on a compensation/blood revenge basis, it was also responsible for the increasing severity of punishments relating to fornication, adultery, eating meat during a fast, making offerings to devils, et cetera.

So the next time you accuse me of imagining things, I suggest instead you have resort to collecting facts rather than assumptions about what I know and don't know.

[Wycoff]

Wow, this thread has turned pretty catty

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, I believe "Saint" Leo I personally devised (or at least approved) the method of forcing confessions out of suspected "sodomites"--having their naked selves lowered slowly onto a red-hot spike.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Wow, how could you be so wrong when you even mentioned the post I responded to in your own post above?

Actually if you read the post to which you objected you'll see that I was replying to Dinodoc's remark about how the thread had turned from a discussion of Islam to one of Christianity. One of your post's simply happened to be closer than Oerdin's

Since when did you become the threadjacking nanny? Conversations lead to tangents. Get over it already.

It's a thankless self-appointed job but somebody has to do it.

Oh? When you say this:



And



And try to explain it away by saying this:



You are indeed weasling out of what you initially said.

I'll ask again: why did you feel the need to make such a comment with regards to me being shipped of to SA to be taught some sort of lesson? Was it to make some sort of noble plea on behalf of abused minority in SA, or was it a snide comment aimed at me and your erroneous assumption as to what I was arguing in this thread? Smart money's on the latter.

Just admit it: You stupidly assumed I was arguing the point that Islamic fundamentalism was somehow "not so bad" and made the statement out of your erroneous assumption. Is that so hard?

Yes, it is.

Except that I said I wasn't, and I confined my argument to the evidence for his existence, not what I believed. Most reasonable people would actually read the content of posts carefully before making such assumptions.





Yes, as an intelligent gay man, I can see there's no reason to think I might be aware of what Islamic fundamentalism thinks of gay people or what conditions are like for gays in SA. Next, I suspect you'll be giving black people lectures on the horrors of slavery or teaching Jews what a nasty bit of business the Holocaust was, lest they be ignorant of those facts.

Sure, why not?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
You presume incorrectly: in Masschusetts in the 17th Century, one of the Christian Protestant colonies instituted a penal code in which the death penalty was provided for idolatry, blasphemy and adultery.

In fact I was relating to catholic part

Breast rippers and oral, anal and vaginal pears were instruments of torture used on women accused of adultery (the breast ripper) and homosexuals (the anal pear) and women accused either of sexual congress with the Devil or his familiars. The oral pear was used on preachers accused of heresy, or lay persons found guilty of 'unorthodox' practices.

(Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide to the Exhibition of Torture Instruments From the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era, publ. Florence 1985)

Interesting. About which period exactly is it about?
How common were tortures according to this book?
And: tortures were not, as long as I know, used to punish people, but to make them speak? Also, they were, at least in the cases of heresy, the last choice and not all that common as people seem to think.
- but I'm talking about MA, perhaps it changed with time.
Also, can You tell me more about that exhibition? Was it kind of in a respected museum, or a commercial one?
And what's the proof that what You've seen there's representative for entire cultural area, in entire period?

So the next time you accuse me of imagining things, I suggest instead you have resort to collecting facts rather than assumptions about what I know and don't know.

Your information contradict, at least at the first glance,
stuff I've read. That's why I am sceptic. Also, knowing your previous posts, I suspect a little bias and overestimation of some facts. I do not question your intelligence, or impressive knowledge, though.