Read about him and you'll find out why. Go on, I dare you.
I'm studying history. I know enough.
Read about him and you'll find out why. Go on, I dare you.
I'm studying history. I know enough.
"I know everything about business"
quote from a management trainee aged 42 who does not read The Economist.
I'm studying history. I know enough.
I dont think you do. History covers just the skim and is always highly politicised.
Out of interest why will the history you have read be any less politicised than what niMic has read?
I dont know enough, I should know far more than I do. However, I have had the benefit of a British schooling, studied history at A Level and as part of my university degree as well as read the Bible, Torah, Gita and Koran. I have tried to read about subjects that interest me from every available source and angle. And yet there is still so much more for me to learn.
You may not know, but the reason i enjoy engaging with the likes of you, Pletch, Raoul, Sultan, Frosty, Koroux and many others in the CE is that I get to learn even more, at least to understand the available schools of thought before I get to my own judgement.
I learnt many years ago that I know nothing and that every conversation is an opportunity to learn more. Im open and willing to allow my opinions to evolve and honest to myself that I should expose myself to as many views as possible before I get to my own considered opinion on a subject that I care about.
Good post, agree with it all.
It just seemed odd that niMic would say he doesn't see a reason to respect Mohammed any more than he does other historical leaders and you would immediately assume this is through ignorance.
Over half the worlds population revere two men, understanding why that is only the very beginning to claim that 'you know enough'.
I have on this very forum said I do not fear or mind scrunity or criticism of any aspects of Islam. It's been subject to scrutinity from day one. In fact, I encourage it, and love debate. It's only through debate and scrutiny and understanding that one can appreciate it virtues.
I personally believe that wrong speech should be countered with wisdom by correct speech, not by shutting people up. I happen to think us Muslims have a great product (Islam) and should effectively engage with well reasoned ideas in the marketplace. I believe the honour of Islam and the Prophet (SAW) is guarded by Allah himself (not saying the hurt will not exist of he's insulted).
We should focus our efforts on bettering ourselves, setting a good example and winning people's hearts. Muslims should realise that their current way of responding to attacks, some warranted, many unfair on Islam is inconsistent with the teachings of our Prophet (SAW). The messages he conveyed was and has always subject to scrutiny and even humiliation far worse than what we see today. However, his response was not to silence but to teach opponents with good speech, wisdom and perfect manners. I would say to Muslims reading this, If we are so concerned about the honour of our religion we should try practicing and conveying the beautiful message we are in trust of as shown by it's leader.
You haven't heard of it? Then I suppose you don't follow the news very closely either. And the quote from the speech is very much open to interpretation, I interpreted as a threat, and a thinly veiled one at that.
How many people have been a victim of violence from Muslims because of their sexuality in Oslo? Give me the numbers.... I know of one person, in 2006. Hardly a big problem
I just watched a show where tha last joke was: "A lot of people enjoyed the descriptions of underage sex described in a new Norwegian novel" followed by footage of the Pope clapping. I would guess that could be considered highly offensive to Catholics, at least some of them. Would you have wanted that joke to remain unpublished to save the Catholics the offense? I wouldn't.
You'd probably be wrong in thinking any Catholic would find that nearly as offensive as Muslims do with Muhammed portrayed as a pig. You know this.
I agree that there are several issues regarding immigrants in Norway (not only Muslims but a large percentage of them are). They should not feel that they are second in line, not in any way and I for one have certainly never treated any Muslim or other immigrant like that but I know that in many ways there is a long way to go. We should not aim to offend but we should not go out of our way to make sure we don't offend when the "offensive" material is published for a reason. For me that is discrimination too, albeit positive discrimination. It's like people treating disabled people like children to make sure they are being considerate, they aren't.
People of non-western decent not being offered jobs they are qualified for, that's discriminating. Not being allowed into clubs, that's discriminating. Getting offended by newspaper articles clearly within the law is not.
Did you know that only a few days ago Dagbladet published an article highlighting discrimination of non-western immigrants at nigh clubs in Oslo. Hardly the work of an anti-Muslim publication I would think.
And Sultan I apologise if I interpreted your post wrongly, I think I may have judging by your response. My point here is that as long as we value a free press, freedom of religion and a right to demonstrate and voice your disagreement there are bound to be people take offense. As long as one excercises these rights within the limits of the law it should not matter. I am sure there are plenty of extreme right nutcases that takes a great deal of offense to the peaceful demonstrations in Oslo this week, should we limit their right to demonstrate then? The answer is of course no.
The image printed was to illustrate a case regarding the picture in question, for me it's silly to even discuss if it should be printed or not.
Honestly Caveman, your entire post shows that you have missed my point completely, and somehow you have managed to so throughout the thread.
You go off talking about discrimation, something I haven't touched on. My point was that for many reasons as I tried to show, Muslims in Norway are "easily" offended when it comes to religion. As a part of trying to achieve respect and understanding between Muslims and Westerners (Noggies fex) we should try and avoid offending them, it would be better for everyone. It's common sense, nothing else.
For some reason you start talking about limiting the rights. I've never talked about that either. I wouldn't ever consider limiting the freedom of speech for anything other than rascism/calls for violence etc. I a few months shy of a law degree so the freedom of speech is something I hold dearer than many others. Only thing I want is that we that use it think twice first.
In general I see that this thread has added another few pages with several new posters since I last posted. I can't be bothered to read it all so I won't be as active in this thread from now on.
I'm going to concentrate on the extremely disappointing Olymypics instead![]()
I dont think you do. History covers just the skim and is always highly politicised.
BTW, a very famous ad by the Economist wrote that
never ever say you know enough,, we can never know enough but if you find the truth, it can set you free to want to learn more and more.
I apologise about the lecturing tone of this post .... but you can never know enough.
Out of interest, what does PBUH and SAW stand for?
Oh come off it, you know I didn't mean it like that. I don't know enough, but I know enough to be able to say with some certainty that there are many other historical figures more worthy of my respect than Muhammad.
Considering I'm about to finish a Masters in History, I'm fairly confident your lecturing tone is unwarranted.
And the reason over half the world reveres these two men isn't mostly because of anything they themselves did, but because of how well their followers forced their beliefs onto other people, mostly by conquest.
Probably should also take into account that the majority of people in general are non-violent. Also the boom in global population during the past 50 years and Islam's proportional growth within that increase.
I'm wondering something about militant Muslims: Pretty much all of Christian militant ideology comes from mixing Old Testament writings with smatterings of non-gospel New Testament writings. Which is funny since Christ clearly says to throw the Old Testament out. Basically these militant types really go out of their way to steer around all of Christ's teachings.
I'm wondering whether a similar phenomenon exists in militant Muslim ideology but in reverse. Since the entirety of the Qur'an comes from one source, how do peaceful Muslims steer around the more violent passages?
I'm wondering something about militant Muslims: Pretty much all of Christian militant ideology comes from mixing Old Testament writings with smatterings of non-gospel New Testament writings. Which is funny since Christ clearly says to throw the Old Testament out. Basically these militant types really go out of their way to steer around all of Christ's teachings.
Jesus said:Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
Ghandi said:I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life
Not all of it.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Not all of it.
Probably should also take into account that the majority of people in general are non-violent. Also the boom in global population during the past 50 years and Islam's proportional growth within that increase.
I'm wondering something about militant Muslims: Pretty much all of Christian militant ideology comes from mixing Old Testament writings with smatterings of non-gospel New Testament writings. Which is funny since Christ clearly says to throw the Old Testament out. Basically these militant types really go out of their way to steer around all of Christ's teachings.
I'm wondering whether a similar phenomenon exists in militant Muslim ideology but in reverse. Since the entirety of the Qur'an comes from one source, how do peaceful Muslims steer around the more violent passages?
If you were being serious, then you've missed the point of that passage.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" refers not to a sword wielded in violence as you or I might see it, but to violence simultaneously on the smallest and broadest of scales (not a contradiction if you see the universe from a God's-eye-view, which Jesus presumably does).
He's basically challenging you to make the breakthrough realization that all physical existence - from a simple breath to a loving caress to a bullet hit - is violent and sinful in nature (since our perceptions of them stem from mortal conceptions of physical cause and effect) and hence no being with a corporeal form - not even him - can escape this. The first part is basically a confession, "I can't bring peace on earth." The second part is the call to "Make some unsettling connections, which will ultimately free your mind."
Reality as perceived by senses evolved to detect and convey energy signatures based on localized and highly specific conditions (matter arranged into 'trees' 'rocks' 'words' 'etc's) of severely limited range risks limiting your perception of God to that of those dozen guys each holding onto one part of the elephant.
All the family talk is along the same lines. What those passages mean is: "There is no such thing as a mother, a daughter, a son, etc. All things are a part of a God that resides above mere mortals' illusions of separation and otherness, good and evil, etc."
So, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" does not equal, "Sorry guys, but you're going to have to get into some fights in my name"
And to the obvious retort, "Why didn't he just say what he meant, then?"
Answer: Well, he did. It's just that he structured the message the same way the universe is structured. In multiple layers/dimensions that are in flux/stasis (again, not a contradiction if you see the universe from a God's-eye view) All religious texts use this trick. Speech is a tricky thing when trying to convey meaning. Which is why all religious writings are so seemingly convoluted. They're designed like huge nets/webs, meant to snag on even the tiniest of mental facets in the hope that the rest of the mind will follow.
Which concludes the sidetracking.
You got all that from one quote?
No wonder Christians have fought amongst themselves for two thousand years.
If you were being serious, then you've missed the point of that passage.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" refers not to a sword wielded in violence as you or I might see it, but to violence simultaneously on the smallest and broadest of scales (not a contradiction if you see the universe from a God's-eye-view, which Jesus presumably does).
He's basically challenging you to make the breakthrough realization that all physical existence - from a simple breath to a loving caress to a bullet hit - is violent and sinful in nature (since our perceptions of them stem from mortal conceptions of physical cause and effect) and hence no being with a corporeal form - not even him - can escape this. The first part is basically a confession, "I can't bring peace on earth." The second part is the call to "Make some unsettling connections, which will ultimately free your mind."
Reality as perceived by senses evolved to detect and convey energy signatures based on localized and highly specific conditions (matter arranged into 'trees' 'rocks' 'words' 'etc's) of severely limited range risks limiting your perception of God to that of those dozen guys each holding onto one part of the elephant.
All the family talk is along the same lines. What those passages mean is: "There is no such thing as a mother, a daughter, a son, etc. All things are a part of a God that resides above mere mortals' illusions of separation and otherness, good and evil, etc."
So, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" does not equal, "Sorry guys, but you're going to have to get into some fights in my name"
And to the obvious retort, "Why didn't he just say what he meant, then?"
Answer: Well, he did. It's just that he structured the message the same way the universe is structured. In multiple layers/dimensions that are in flux/stasis (again, not a contradiction if you see the universe from a God's-eye view) All religious texts use this trick. Speech is a tricky thing when trying to convey meaning. Which is why all religious writings are so seemingly convoluted. They're designed like huge nets/webs, meant to snag on even the tiniest of mental facets in the hope that the rest of the mind will follow.
Which concludes the sidetracking.
It's responses like this which make any debate of this nature utterly, utterly pointless.
Believers will twist literally anything to suit their own ends and then accuse everyone else of "missing the point".
Non-believers do the same, I suppose.
It's just round and round and round and round...
To be fair, while "context" is often used as a kind of universal acid against all criticism of certain passages, there are some contexts that are more correct than others. I just wish that more religious believers, instead of chiding atheists for supposedly not understanding the context (which is sometimes true, of course, although it is disingenuous to pretend that there is anything like an objective method of deciding between interpretations), would spend more time attempting to convince their fellow believers of the "correct" (and hopefully more agreeable) interpretations.
Scholarship can help people to understand passages in a better context, but it does come with a price. Firstly, it doesn't explain why so many people have got it "wrong" over the years, often with fairly brutal consequences, and often using arguments and evidence that is as convincing as those used for an entirely different interpretation. And it can also be used as an argument against God as the author of any of it, because it is inconceivable that an all-loving and all-knowing God would have allowed so much ambiguity, often leading to violence and discrimination, when He could have been far more clear and unambiguous.
As poetic as some may believe the language to be, no parent would get away with that excuse while attempting to teach their children, if it could be shown that their teaching methods were horribly confusing and detrimental to their child's health and safety.
The very fact that there are 38,000 denominations within Christianity, alone, and millions of different interpretations, suggests that, even were God to exist, all claims that He has a message that He wants us to hear are incoherent and contradicted by the evidence.
It's responses like this which make any debate of this nature utterly, utterly pointless.
Believers will twist literally anything to suit their own ends and then accuse everyone else of "missing the point".
Non-believers do the same, I suppose.
It's just round and round and round and round...
I just find it really strange that anyone should feel so outraged about a stupid cartoon that they feel the need to take to the streets and protest. I can't even begin to relate to that sort of mind-set. It just comes across as incredibly insecure and uptight. Which is odd, because I always thought that one of the very few benefits of being a committed theist (of any religion) is an emphasis on forgiveness, on being comfortable in one's own skin and an ability to look beyond worldly problems and see the bigger picture.
It's just ink on paper. I'm sure whichever spritual being is portayed in an offensive manner has more important things to worry about going on in the world today than a crap caricature in a local paper. So why do his followers get so irate?
If any newspaper publishes content that offends there is an option not to buy that newspaper. If someone is confident in their faith of choice, surely the correct emotion to feel would be to pity the people so blinded by hate and intolerance that they feel the need to gratuitously provoke? Shouldn't the protestors carry on with their normal lives? At best, maybe take a moment to pray for the journalists involve but why take to the streets in anger?
I will always be baffled by the extreme sensitivity of people with faith and the fact religion seems to constantly be drawn into situations of conflict, bitterness and anger. It's yet another reason I feel I've made the right decision in bringing my child up to form his own opinions in life.
What's so pathetic?
Why are you so affected by a few letters?
Don't we generally add RIP to those loved ones who have passed away?
Right. So every time someone mentions Winston Churchill they should apend the letters RIP as a matter of course???
'The reality of the dealings at the Potsdam conference was that Churchill (RIP) and Truman (RIP) were pursuing different agendas'.
Get real for goodness sake.
Joga,
I agree with your statement but I believe this depends on how willing the poster really is to engage in a intelligent debate. The fact is there are a few posters on this forum who dont care that much about context or no context. NiMic is of those guys. Any further discussion with him would be an utter waste of time.
Your other point is interesting as it deals with the history of interpretation. I would argue that a person can either genuinely or deliberately misinterpreted a certain passage. I'm not sure how a incidental, genuine misinterpretation would lead to disastrous consequences (Im trying to think of an possible example), but I can definitely see how a person, or a group, would use a certain passage in order to promote their own agendas while at the same time disregarding the context, or making no effort whatsoever to investigate if their actions are properly backed up by the theology.
About the high number of Christian denominations you have mentioned: I would say the vast majority of them agree and share the major doctrines (issues on repentance, forgiveness, salvation, Jesus' sacrifice, etc.). However, you could say that they differ in loads of minor details. For example you can have a major baptist church and only one person (or maybe few people) who disagree on one detail- this can already be enough for this person to step out of the church and organize a new one (thus creating a new denomination), which will only slightly differ from the original one. I have been to quite a few Christian churches and interestingly many of them are comprised of former Methodists, former Baptists, former this and that. Still, if you'd ask all those 38,000 denominations to write down their top three beliefs, or doctrines, I bet 99% of them would be identical.
In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.
There must be some distinguishing features in Islam that caused its rapid growth and made it so phenomenal.
I quote a historian named Chirri
"Force may conquer the body, but it cannot conquer the spirit. You may subdue an individual or community by the use of force, but you cannot make them believe that you are right. The Algerians were dominated by colonial France for about a hundred years, but that did not make them love their rulers. As soon as they had the opportunity, they rose in arms against their masters and broke their yoke.
It is illogical to believe that Islam had spread itself by force. Mohammad, as one person, could not force thousands or hundreds to embrace his faith. History testifies that Mohammad lived thirteen years in Mecca after he proclaimed his faith, under a constant threat from his opponents who were the overwhelming majority of the Meccans. Anyone that desired to join Islam was denounced, threatened, and persecuted by the Meccans; and, in spite of this, the number of Muslims steadily increased. Can we conceive that Mohammad under these circumstances could convert people by force when he himself was a subject of persecution?
At a later stage, the Muslims had become powerful enough to fight their opponents; and history shows that they did fight for Islam. But this does not mean that Islam had converted people by force. There are now over 100 million Muslims in Indonesia and scores of millions in West Africa. All these millions were converted through peaceful contacts with Muslims who came to these areas as merchants or educators.
There is, however, no reason to deny that Muslims were militant The Muslims actually were good defenders of their freedom. We know that no ideology would spread or live in an unfree society. Freedom of belief, practice, and speech, are necessary for the growth of any ideology. In the absence of a constitutional protection of freedom, it would be the duty of the people of the ideology to secure their freedom on their own. If this does not justify the military might of the early Muslims, there will be no way to justify the military might of any modern nation that rises in arms to defend its freedom when it is threatened by its adversaries."
If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that the bible is amenable to serious scholarship, but that it is also, unfortunately, amenable to shoddy scholarship, as well (as are all subjects, to be fair). And the thing is that you don't need to believe that it is in any sense divinely inspired to believe that, but to argue that it isn't requires one to honestly work from the most logical and well supported interpretations, just as arguing that God doesn't exist requires one to understand the history of the philosophy of religion. Dismissing it out of hand is anti-intellectual, in my opinion, because there are many theists who could tie the vast majority of atheists in knots, intellectually. So, just as it is unfair to judge atheists by the worst amongst us, so too is it unfair to judge all of religion by shoddy scholarship and its most naive believers.
I've made the point time and again that, while I am not personally a believer, I have a great respect for many liberal believers who I have found to be among the most intellectually honest people that I have ever come across. I may not entirely understand why they continue to believe, given that they tend to agree with me about a lot of things, but I have absolutely no reason to fear that our views are so incompatible that we cannot compromise over our differences. Following numerous blogs written by believing philosophy of religion professors has greatly helped my understanding of the bible, and it has also been useful as a reminder that, even though many of the people that are featured in the media and on atheist blogs are not good examples of Christianity, the overwhelming majority of all people are good, honest people. I've grown more and more tired of the gross caricature of religious believers by some atheists (usually those who know very little, themselves), because while it is true that many believers have a very naive understanding of religion and science and intellectual history in general, that's just true of most people, including myself, relative to the amount of knowledge that is available.
While many atheists do dismiss serious scholarship with respect to the bible, to my continuing dismay, it must be said that it pales in comparison to the poor scholarship that has been done, to the detriment of Christianity, in my opinion, by Christians, themselves. And what you so often find is that they tend to have political, and not theological, reasons for wanting to interpret the bible in that way. As many studies have shown, a lot of what people interpret God and the bible as saying, particularly concerning morality, tends to exactly mirror there own view. That may not appear to be a surprise, at first glance, but it has been shown that they are, in fact, projecting their own personal biases on to the text, rather than honestly assessing what it actually says.
One set of studies, by Epley, Converse, Delbosc, Monteleone, and Cacioppo found that:
And this is why serious scholarship is so important, because it is vital to have a good understanding of what the text actually means, although I would still hope that people would also attempt to asses the reasonableness, particularly where morality is concerned, external to anything religious (such as through the principle of harm, etc).
What is clear is that the major religions of the world are brilliantly designed (consciously or unconsciously) to acquire followers and retain them. Obviously part of their success is due to military victories, but clearly not all of it. How does Christianity or Islam for example manage to maintain such high numbers of followers compared to the tens of thousands of other religions which have gone extinct? I think some of the reasons are likely to be:
I'm not sure they're designed, so much as evolved.
Oops...