Freedom of Speech.

[Dark Moth]

Part of the reason for Christian violence was the emergence of the corrupt institution of the Roman Catholic Church. Combine that with authority, and you have trouble, even with a religion like Christianity. And I don't mean to offend Catholics, but back then the institution was most certainly corrupt. Of course, you then had crazy fundamentalist groups like the Puritans which didn't make things any easier later on.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Mothman

[julianw]

@Mothman - We discussed some of those issues long time ago and I am too tired to repeat them all since obviously you didn't pay too much attention to them the first time. *sigh* I guess I will just offer one final advice: do not be so quick to point the finger. Didn't Christ say let the sinless ones cast the first stone?

 

Your sources are obviously biased as are mine. Why do you trust their accusations so much? You did not witness Muhammad cursing anyone, did you? Was someone in the tent witnessing Muhammad's wedding night with the nine-year-old, who was also 14 (a common age for marriage) according to others? We don't even know what the prophet looks like today. Why do you let these irrelevant 'facts' cloud your judgements?

 

Yes. Muhammad killed a few thousand people, but do you not see how much he accomplished in life? He raised an entire nation. Christ couldn't even convince the Jews that he is the true prophet. If you couldn't possibly find any appreciation for Muhammad the person even if you deny him the prophethood, I have to say that I am sorry to find your position on Muhammad quite disrespectful.

Edited February 8, 2006 by julianw

[213374U]

You know about my attitude toward Muhammad already.  My opinions are all based on fact.  Muhammad killed.  Muhammad murdered.  Muhammad defied his own faith.  Muhammad may have had sexual relations with a nine year old (whom he may have married when she was six).  I dare you to tell me this is false.  Here's another example of Muhammad, the great and forgiving man, in action:

 

After the battle of Badr, Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait, one of the Quraysh leaders, pleaded with Muhammad for his life.  He pleaded for his life.  "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" 

"Hell," responded Muhammad, and ordered Uqba killed. 

 

Also, Amr ibn Hisham, (also known as Abu Jahl, a name given to him by Muslims, meaning "father of ignorance), another Quraysh leader, was beheaded.  The Muslim who cut off his head proudly carried it to Muhammad and said "I cut off his  head and brought it to the apostle, saying, "this is the head of the enemy of God, Abu Jahl.'" 

Muhammad was delighted, and said "By God than Whom there is no other, is it?", and gave thanks to Allah for his death. 

 

This information comes from Ibn Ishaq's "The Life of Muhammad".

It's a common mistake to apply today's moral standards to someone that lived so long ago. Even if some of those things may seem horrible to us today, they were not back then. People are defined by the time they are born into, and those times were way more brutal and harsh than today.

 

 

Christ couldn't even convince the Jews that he is the true prophet.

Maybe killing a few thousand would have helped with that... "

[julianw]

Christ couldn't even convince the Jews that he is the true prophet.

Maybe killing a few thousand would have helped with that... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well. Christ isn't Muhammad and Muhammad isn't Christ. They each had different roles in life.

[metadigital]

Christ couldn't even convince the Jews that he is the true prophet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't possible to say with any certainty exactly what was going on two thousand years ago in Palestine, not because there is an absense of written material, but because there has been so much revision (by those pesky corrupt Roman Catholics).

 

I have reason to believe an alternative version of the historical Jesus The Christ (as opposed to the commonly known religious propaganda established by the Pauline doctrines and the Church of Peter; cf the Gospel of Mary and Peter's patriarchal misogyny).

 

Jesus The Christ was executed as the direct and legitimate heir of the line of King David ("Christ" being the honorific used to describe the equivalewnt of a King / Pope in the contemporary Hebrew culture) by the Roman Empire for being a political activist stirring up trouble against the Roman governor and rule. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment for prisoners (remember Spartacus?). (If he was an enemy of the Hebrew establishment, then they had the right to stone anyone they wanted to death, anytime they felt like it. Romans were good like that: very laissez-faire when it came to regional policing, so long as the taxes kept coming.)

 

He was most definitely a "freedom fighter" for the Jewish people, and his aim was to create an insurrection. I'm not sure if he led any major battles, though (can't remember off hand).

 

A lot of the confusion exists because the Church of Rome had scripture that was spun to make the Romans look less like the bad guys (the misinformation that "the jews killed Jesus!" was one of the complaints made by the Jewish leaders about the film by Mel Gibson (who is a staunch Catholic), The Passion of the Christ). A lot of this spin can be seen when comparing the scriptures with those found in the dead sea caves, which were not destined for a Roman audience (Egyptian or others, instead): for some strange reason all access to these documents is restricted by the Vatican ... "

[Blank]

I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God, and the second was to love thy neighbour.  It's not so hard to see that Christians consider this to overrule stoning adulteresses and so on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Steve.

 

Also, the quotes from Deuteronomy 13 were addressed directly to the Israelites. God was trying to preserve His people's sanctity, as you can see from the reasoning in verse 11. very similar to modern-day corporate punishment.

 

and that quote from Deut. 17 was very paraphrased. if you read it you see, again, the reasoning behind the punishment. It sounds harsh, but an Israelite (note: not a person from another nation. look at verse 2) who worshipped another god in their time was treated the same way we treat murderers: they get a death sentence. but in that passage you see that they are told to investigate thouroughly, and that there must be at least 2 witnesses to the idolatry. i'll just post the passage really small like i did before, so you can copy+paste and it'll be big again (w00t)...

 

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (New American Standard Bible)

 

2"If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant,

 

3and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded,

 

4and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel,

 

5then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death.

 

6"On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

 

7"The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

[Shadowstrider]

Once again, I'm waiting for the part where you point out that it isn't ironic.

 

To prove muslims aren't violent, muslims protest violently.  Doesn't matter how many did compared to how many didn't.  Irony is still present.

If the violent protesters were protesting to prove that Muslims aren't violent, there would have been irony. But they weren't, as I wrote above. You've misunderstood why both moderates and extremists were protesting.

 

I'd suggest you reflect on the implications of perceiving irony where you claim to, but I certainly don't intend to debate with you if you insult me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

'_;

 

I hurt your feelings. I'm still baffled over the percieved insult, but its not hard to see why you wouldn't want to continue debating the matter.

 

None-the-less, a cartoon protrays Islam's prophet with a bomb in his turban. The insinuation is clear; Islam was bred and violence, and carries it with it.

 

Muslims are outraged! How dare they make such a cartoon! What do they do? Start fires, overturn cars, and cause people to hide in order to avoid being publically humiliated or killed.

 

You can try to deflect the issue all you want. Irony is there, despite your trying to dissolve the issue at hand into the millions of underlying concerns.

 

Do hindu protest everytime there is a McDonalds comercial on the air? It glorifies the death of a sacred animal. Or Burger King? Hardees?

 

Do christians protest everytime someone is depicted as Jesus? Just this year a plethora of people have been iconified using images which remind evoke images of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

 

You can defend the violent actions all you want, with your psuedo-intellectual excuses. The matter at hand is absurd and ludicrous. You're trying to deflect the issue into one of inequality, when in reality people are being killed and extreme acts of violence have been inspired by cartoons, many of which depict muslims as violent.

 

Why is it acceptable for muslims to "protest," but not hindu or christians? If a bunch of christians were burning down buildings because Kanye West was depicted as Jesus, people here would take cheap shots about religious fanatics and simply dismissed as nuts. Somehow, though, it is "okay" for these muslims to "protest." Clearly the burning buildings were sacrificed willingly to keep the "peaceful protesters" warm at night on those cold nights.

 

:roll:

 

There is no double-standard, though. None at all.

[KBAegis]

So what if, hypothetically speaking, these protesters were actually Isreali insiting a riot and representing territory which is hostile to their presence? Or worse yet, the cartoon was created by a member of Hamas which wanted to get the Islamic people more pissed off at the rest of the world and support their cause?

[Shadowstrider]

So what if, hypothetically speaking, these protesters were actually Isreali insiting a riot and representing territory which is hostile to their presence?  Or worse yet, the cartoon was created by a member of Hamas which wanted to get the Islamic people more pissed off at the rest of the world and support their cause?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C

O

N

SPIRACY!

[Darth Launch]

There's been too much activity on this thread for me to be able to focus long enough to read it all through, so this isn't directed at anyone... I guess this is kinda like my closing statement since I'm about to disappear into the world of essays, reports, dissertations and exams and won't re-emerge until June/July... yes, I know, you're all going to miss me

 

I know I'm not the most articulate in my arguments... definitely no where near as constructive either... which is probably due to my unfocussed nature, my giggliness and zen... (I bow down to you Mr. Metadigital :D )... and so I probably shouldn't involve myself too much in these sort of debates... but I did feel that it was wrong of those posting in this thread that said that those acting out violently against the cartoons were muslim simply because they claim to be... just as much as it would be wrong for people to claim that, for instance, the KKK act in the name Protestants as that is what the members of the KKK claim to be... I felt it was important for people to understand that there is a difference between actual muslims and the extremists... and I also felt that it was wrong for those to post parts of the Qu'ran in the wrong context, especially since I have read it and read it in the state that it was written free from any supposed alterations... I'm not saying I'm right... that's why I used "in my opinion" or "in my interpretation"... but nor am I necessarily wrong... and as a psuedo-muslim (being part-muslim, part-Buddhist... which is partly a result of my genetics... and yes, I'm greedy but I think they compliment each other nicely... oh, and please don't cry Mothie ^_^) I tend to question the faith more than most of you have been doing... I'm not exactly going to believe in something that I don't understand... that just wouldn't make sense... and I find the concept of blind faith stupid... so I'm aware there are lots of ancient religious laws that just aren't applicable in today's society (even in the Middle East) but it only takes a little commonsense (which is something the Qu'ran asks for in muslims... as well as what I've heard many Imams ask for too) to decide whether or not to continue with the "enforcement" of these laws... those muslims that insist on "enforcing" these ancient laws are just sadly misguided

 

Eep... I'm being terribly rambly :">

 

Anyway, to answer Mr. Eldar's question (well, I think it was Mr. Eldar who asked me) about my opinion as a muslim on the cartoons... I must say that, I found the cartoons distasteful but completely unworthy of the attention they received by both the media and the extremists... every muslim I know thinks completely the same way... in all honesty, I'm so used to reading about how Islam is war-mongering and repressive and how all muslims are terrorists that these cartoons were like water off a duck's back... the people I'm "angry" with are the extremists themselves... but all I can say is that they don't speak for all of us

 

Anyways, I should shut up now... but I hope at least some of what I said makes some sense to at least someone :">

 

Hope to read you all in the Summer... take care everyone

DL

[Nick_i_am]

I have reason to believe an alternative version of the historical Jesus The Christ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is a very interesting point of view. I am not christian, but have a mild belief that jesus did exist, and possibly that he never really thought of himself as the son of god any more than 'we are all the sons of god'.

[Moose]

PMSL... did anyone catch the French Magazine that today reprinted all 12 cartoons plus a full front page version of their own with muhammad putting his face in his hands and saying "It's hard to be loved by fools".

 

Ahahahhahahahahahahahahhaaaaa!

[Nick_i_am]

There ARE times that I love the french.

[Lucius]

Nice

[WITHTEETH]

I have reason to believe an alternative version of the historical Jesus The Christ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is a very interesting point of view. I am not christian, but have a mild belief that jesus did exist, and possibly that he never really thought of himself as the son of god any more than 'we are all the sons of god'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe he existed also, his name was Julius Caesar. Theres also a mix with Buddha, whether he was a real person i wouldn't know.

[metadigital]

Also, the quotes from Deuteronomy 13 were addressed directly to the Israelites. God was trying to preserve His people's sanctity, as you can see from the reasoning in verse 11.

 

blah blah rationalisation blah blah

 

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (New American Standard Bible)

 

2"If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant,

 

3and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded,

 

4and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel,

 

5then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death.

 

6"On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

 

7"The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point I was making (evidently not eloquently enough) was that there are just as many seditious verses in the Bible, and we have people right here on the forum who believe the Bible is the divine word of God *doesn't look at anyone in particular "*

 

Incidentally, is that another interpretation of the divine word of god? Different from the King James Bible?

I have reason to believe an alternative version of the historical Jesus The Christ

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very interesting point of view. I am not christian, but have a mild belief that jesus did exist, and possibly that he never really thought of himself as the son of god any more than 'we are all the sons of god'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Messianic Legacy covers a lot of it in the first half of the book (Michael Baigent co-wrote the run-away bestseller Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which sat atop the book charts for most of the eighties and which is currently the claimant in a suit against The Davinci code for plagiarism; this is a sequel, which delves into a lot of the historical evidence of Christ, most of which is taught to clergy in seminaries and they consequently come to terms with it and have no problems accepting it, the liety is just presumed not to be smart enough to be told ... the bookk includes citations for all their references, so you can do your own checking.)

[Volourn]

"Muslims can insult Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others, but God forbid if anyone should do anything in the slightest way questionable, they will take to the streets and commit violence," Zuroff said, appearing on CTV's Canada AM."

 

That says it all. Game over.

[WITHTEETH]

Gabriel Knight: Blood of The Sacred, Blood of The Damned was also a reworking of that original book. Good entertaining stuff.

[Lucius]

One of the good things, if you can call it that, to come out of this here is a new group called "Moderate Muslims" spearheaded by Syrian born MP Naser Khader who distances himself from fundamentalist Islam and bash them whenever he can. This guy has gained a lot of respect here, even from the most far right party in parliament.

In a TV-Debate the other day he questioned radical muslims; why o why they don't protest when people, in the name of the religion and prophet they hold so dear, decapitates hostages in Iraq and blow themselves up all over the world, when they protest, make public outcry and violent rampages due to 12... ridiculous... drawings. (and as he pointed out, the last time we heard the outcry of these people was when Theo van Gogh was murdered and how "OK" it was to murder him)

Because of his moderate stance on this affair, he's now under constant protection by Police Intelligence Agency guards... how truely tolerant these people are of us, huh?

[metadigital]

The problem is that the "extreme Muslims" are about as Islamic as pork chops in a white wine sauce.

[Nick_i_am]

...that experession rocks.

 

p.s. thanks for the info, deffinately food for thought, you too WITHTEETH.

[Dark Moth]

*snip*

Hope to read you all in the Summer... take care everyone 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bye, DL! Good luck. *waves* I may be on a hiatus soon myself, for similar reasons.

 

 

The point I was making (evidently not eloquently enough) was that there are just as many seditious verses in the Bible, and we have people right here on the forum who believe the Bible is the divine word of God *doesn't look at anyone in particular "*

 

I do. And damn proud of it!

 

Incidentally, is that another interpretation of the divine word of god? Different from the King James Bible?

 

Just FYI, there are better translations out there. The KJV contains translational errors itself, and is written in Elizabethan English, so not everything in it is accurate. (not necessarily referring to that verse)

 

BTW, I've read some of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (my dad has his own copy) It does appear convincing at first, but upon examination one can tell that it contains numerous historical errors. I wouldn't take it too seriously. For those of you who have read the Da Vinci Code, I'd also recommend "The Da Vinci Hoax" and "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code"

Edited February 8, 2006 by Mothman

[213374U]

I believe he existed also, his name was Julius Caesar. Theres also a mix with Buddha, whether he was a real person i wouldn't know.

 

...win.

[Kaftan Barlast]

 

I believe in the sacred deity known to man as "Jultomten" (in the holy lanugage of swedish) or to lesser beings as "Santa Claus" or "Father Christmas" or "Weinachtsman" or "Santaru Crausu"(engrish is a handicap and not something to be laughed at " )

 

 

If you wear the colour red without the written permission of the church of santa claus, this means a deep mockery of every believer of santa in the world and to santa himself and thus you must be turned inside out. I demand that anyone, whoever they may be and whoever they may live, found guilty of this be extradited to the church of santa claus to be turned inside out! This also applies to anyone denying the existence of santa.

 

 

Furthermore, anyone who doesnt believe in santa or believes in another deity than santa, must be beaten with a candy cane until dead or until he/she converts to the church of santa.

 

 

 

FEAR THE TOMTE OF JUL!!

[Lucius]

But Kaftan, what about Danish football fans, then? Surely the holy scriptures of Santa (praised be his beard) states that use of the colour red is in fact allowed when combined with white at sporting events, no?