Real World Event Discussions

'I go to bed at night...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, September 25, 2010 19:49
VIEWED: 13333
PAGE 10 of 11

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:44 AM

"in some cases, interpret it subjectively to match what THEY believe."

Hello,

This reminds me of an incident from my early youth. One of my younger, bratty Cousins hit me, and I hit him back. This was at my grandmother's house, and he went crying to my grandmother to complain about this mistreatment.

My grandmother, who was very religious, asked me, "What does Jesus say to do when someone hits you?"

I said, "Turn the other cheek," with a triumphant tone.

And she said, disapprovingly, "Well, then?!"

And I was genuinely confused, and tried to explain, "He turned my cheek, and I turned his!"

I had, up until this point, misinterpreted the whole pacifist angle of Jesus Christ. The whole adage about turning the other cheek suddenly lost a lot of its allure to my young mind. :-)

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NIKI2

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:31 PM

Surely you're not saying the bible was all sweetness and light compared to the qu'ran?? All that violence and incest and angry, judgmental god...? The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.

But yes, I, too, had hoped we could move past religion; it's original purpose was to appeal to the better nature of man (as well as give them an instruction booklet to live by and a god to look to for judgment); it's interpretation, just like any religion, has been to appeal to the worst nature of man, and, given I don't see us as having evolved much past our original mentality, I don't expect it will go away...maybe ever.

Your original point was a good one, KPO, in my opinion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MINCINGBEAST

Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:47 PM

There's quite a bit of violence in the Tanakh; one of its functions was a history, and as such it was full of the ugly things that men did to each other. I don't find many theological imperatives to do violence in it, but then again, its been ages since I touched a bible and being as that I just washed my hands...

But anyway, I defy you to support the following assertion:

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.

I reiterate my discomfort with making pronouncements about a text's "original form," from a different cultural context, a millenia and a half after the fact. Are you talking about the split between Mecca/Medina (both are original I'd argue), or do you not find a religion that aims to be universal and damns the unbeliever to be viciously judgmental or violent?

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:07 PM

Hello,

Arguing the comparative merits or the Quran vs. the Bible is like arguing about the number of blaster bolts in A New Hope versus Empire Strikes Back.

I promise that they both have a lot of blaster bolts.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

KPO

Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:15 PM

Quote:
Well, I'm not inclined to grant anti-islamic fanatics with the authority to define the scope of Islam.

No, I didn't think you would be.

Quote:
I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text.

Hmm. I'm an atheist but I was brought up a christian, and was taught to read the bible not asking the question "What does it mean to me?" but rather "What did it mean to them (whoever Jesus/St Paul etc was talking to)?" I find it hard to believe honest Muslims would not be influenced by Mohammed's original meaning, if it was put to them and they had deviated from it. For example some people have suggested that Mohammed's wife didn't wear a headscarf... But of course entrenched tradition is always hard to shift...

Quote:
Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic.

That's religion - what can you do?

Quote:
Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.

Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?

It's not personal. It's just war.

MINCINGBEAST

Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:31 PM

Reconstructing original meaning is impossible. We may make educated guesses about what Mohammed's exhortation to "kill all infidels" meant to his first followers, or what the framers meant, so long as we acknowledge we're guessing--which is a difficult thing to do when we conflate original meaning and truth. Short of necromancy, we can't know. Moreover, necromancy ought only be used to raise the living dead--not settle arguments about what some asshole author really meant.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?

Not hard for me, but hard for some, and certainly no harder than suggesting that a purported holy text is not the end of history and without flaw. Contrary to what some folks may say, flexibility is built into the US constitution--the same can't be said of the Bible or Koran.

NIKI2

Thursday, September 23, 2010 8:00 PM

Anthony's right, and of course there are no "religions" which don't damn the "unbelievers"--except buddhism as far as I know, which, again, is more a philosophy than a religion. We respect all religions and, given we have no "god", don't have any "nonbelievers" to condemn.

I respect the INTENT of all religions, but I'm not buddhist enough to respect what the religions became and how they are/were used.

I understand the use of “defy”, Mincing, but I’d rather “discuss”. I could be wrong, because I follow neither religion, but from what my research has gleaned, there’s more compassion in the Qu’ran than the Bible. This took forever, and I'm sure there are fallacies in either religion. I looked to find passages on several subjects to compare how they were dealt with; you might be able to see a pattern:

Both Qu’ran and Bible are difficult to translate. For the Qu'ran, owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points. Parts of it have been interpreted different ways by different people, some unintentionally, some deliberately. There are also inconsistencies (which any devoute Muslim will dispute until their dying breath), but there are inconsistencies in the Bible as well.

What most Americans/devout Christians don’t recognize is that “Allah” means “God”, and the followers of Mohammed considered themselves following the same God as Christians (and to an extent Jews). They had bad feelings for the Jews, given that the Jews crucified Christ, but even there, had compassion for them.

Quote:
5.82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Regarding Jews and Christians:

Quote:
5.69. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

By the way, Christ exists in the Qu’ran, and was considered holy and a prophet by Muchammed, but not the “son of God”, and the holy trinity is rejected, in that only God stands above all. Thus

Quote:
Sura 3:45 (Al-Imran) - "The angels said to Mariam (Mary): 'Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is al-Masih (Messiah), Isa the son of Mariam. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah.'"

When the angel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus, he said in Sura 19:19 (Mariam) - "'I am the messenger of your Lord,' he replied, 'and have come to give you a holy son.'"

Sura 3:49 (AI-Imran) - (Jesus is speaking) "I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay, I will make for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breathe into it and, by Allah's leave, it shall become a living bird. By Allah's leave, I shall give sight to the blind man, heal the leper and raise the dead to life." It is only the Lord Jesus Christ who can do such things and by the Quran's own standard this identifies Jesus as the one with divine power and authority.

Sura 4:171 (Al-Nisa) - "Al-Masih (Messiah), Isa (Jesus) the son of Mariam, was no more than Allah's apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mariam, and a spirit proceeding from Him." Jesus is the Spirit of God (Ruhull-llah) and the Word of God. Moses is called God's spokesman in the Quran, and Abraham is called the friend of God while Muhammed is called the messenger of God

9.30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

The Qu’ran considered “pagans” as the worst offenders of Allah’ unbelievers, but eve

1KIKI

Friday, September 24, 2010 4:03 AM

Is Klesst new? Cool, another chew toy.

KPO

Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:47 AM

Quote:
Reconstructing original meaning is impossible.

I wouldn't say that. The authors of these holy texts had a specific meaning in mind when they were writing (or dictating, in Mohammed's case), and their aim in commiting it to paper was to communicate that meaning, and make sure it survived. Some times things may be a bit murky, but I doubt there are many passages in any religion that leave scholars completely baffled as to what the author was driving at. I'm not saying mis-interpretation doesn't happen often, obviously it does - but that's mainly because people's biases step in, not because the murkiness is impenetrable.

Quote:
We may make educated guesses about what Mohammed's exhortation to "kill all infidels" meant to his first followers

Yes okay, there is a problem here... Not so much with Mohammed's original meaning but due to the fact that his directions here and a lot of them generally seem to be very specific to the time period and situation of Mohammed's writing - when Islam was embyonic, and strategically on the defensive (so I hear). The problem is how modern day Muslims try to interpret these passages for their modern situations - because the real fact of the matter (in my view) is that these verses have no contemporary relevance, Mohammed was not looking ahead to the geopolitics of the future when he gave these directions. For example I don't think Mohammed foresaw religious clashes with christians and jews, because the qu'ran seems to have a special place of respect and non-slaughter for them, that isn't reserved for pagan/infidel adversaries.

Quote:
flexibility is built into the US constitution--the same can't be said of the Bible or Koran.

True, I'm not sure it would make much sense to religious people for their 'Word of God' holy texts to not be timeless. When it comes to what's written in the bible and the Koran - it is what it is.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KWICKO

Saturday, September 25, 2010 11:16 AM

Quote:
Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.

I loathe them because they tend to want to pick and choose the parts they're "strict" about. Much like fundie Xtians do; they love the "Don't be gay!" parts of the Old Testament, but are amazingly mute about the verses surrounding it which prescribe the same death and damnation for anyone who cuts their hair, shaves, or has tattoos or piercings. But when someone points these things out, suddenly the Old Testament isn't important, because they go by the NEW Testament when it comes to such inconvenient "non-Christian" things that THEY like to do...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.