Badmovies.org Forum

Many people hate Islam because of rumors or what they've read and how radical Islamists use their religion to condone premeditated murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks).

But there are millions of people who follow and love it.

I have known people who are devout Muslims and most of them are good people.
But we all know about how intolerant Islam is of secularism and other religions.

My goal here is to determine what we here on this board think of Islam.
Because this is a somewhat sensitive topic, please...no flame wars.  Keep it civil.

As for myself, I quote Winston Churchill...

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries; improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step. Were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

What do you think about Islam? 
Be honest!  No one here is going to kill you for stating your opinion.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace, although some of its adherents are peaceful people.  From Muhammad on down, Islam has been spread by the sword.  Violence is openly proclaimed as an acceptable means of proselytizing in the pages of the Quran, and the more modern, radical schools of Islam simply represent the faith returning to its bloody roots.

Christians have also practiced violence in their long history, but when a Christian kills in the name of his faith, he does so in direct violation of everything that Jesus Christ taught.  When a Muslim kills in the name of his faith, he is following Muhammad's example.

I don't know alot about Islam....but of ALL organized religion I'm of the opinion that it's worthless. How many people kill one another because of "My Gods bigger than your God?" Fooey. It's all BS.
 I believe in a God. But thats my business....and I don't feel the need to impress it onto anyone elese. If you wanna pray to Jesus, the Virgin Mary,the Flying Spagehtti Monster or some Alien from Outer Space...fine! Have at it brother! But point a gun at someome with a (insert EVIL DEAD voice here--->) "JOIN US!" ...well...

 Too many idiots without the capacitiy to control themselves in a civil manner reley on some ancient outdated theology to  keep there heads out there asses...and too many nut jobs with bad intent make use of the brainless lemmings for their personal agenda.

 Ok. I guess I'm done.

The newscasters on TV keep insisting that Islam is a wonderful religion and 99.999% of the people who follow it are peaceful;  I just don't see it.  After 9/11 the news networks were running around looking for an American Muslim group to condemn the attacks, and they couldn't find any willing to do so.  They did a Gallup poll in Pakistan and found that 80% of people think of Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter".  I mean, freedom from what?  They're right next door to Afghanistan and obviously must know that it was one of the most non-free places on Earth.  And on and on.  There was a guy in the US military who was a Muslim and he decided to toss a few grenades into the tents of his fellow soldiers.  I see Jewish hotels in Africa getting bombed and the local Muslim population reacts by saying "Ha Ha, it was just Jews".  I honestly think that if they had the means, the countries of the Middle East would kill every last Jew in Israel, exactly like the Nazi holocaust.  If they had better military planners, it would already be done.

As far as other religions, when the Christians were carrying out the crusades, I would have stayed the hell away from them as well. 

 

I post at a muslim board sometime.  I wanted to get authentic views on foreign policy that weren't from "experts".  I learned more there than I did thruogh Bernard lewis, juan cole or any of those 'splainer men. 


I'd say the key thing I learned was that there are 3 sides:  us, the jihadists, and neither.  the jihadists act like anyone who is not on their side is on the americans side, and the americans act like anyone who doesn't like them is al queda.

In reality,  while most muslims share the same general religion as al queda, islam, and the same generally modern way of life as americans, unless you go way way out in the countryside like afghanistan,  they are their own distinct group.

they don't like us  OR al queda and i don't think the american public understands that alot of times.

If everyone in the middle east worshiped giant fluffy bunnies we'd still have 99% of the exact same problems (except we'd also have some cool giant bunny statues)

It's a myth that Islam may be summed up simply as a religion of peace. There are of course peaceful Moslems (that's the Farsi pronunciation, by the way, an "o" not a "u")  and many good people who follow Islam are peaceful, but at its heart Islam is, was, and probably always will be a religion which readily embraces violence as an acceptable tool of conquest, conformity, criminal punishment, random terror.

The genesis of Islam was in violent clan warfare, wholesale massacres (Google Banu Qurayza sometime if you doubt it) and conversion at swordpoint. I've read the Koran and  studied Islamic history and can tell you the politically correct "embrace diversity at all costs" view of the world's second largest religion is not accurate. According to the United Nations, Islamic states are the most undereducated, intolerant countries in existence, and nowhere else are Christians, Jews, Buddhists and miscellaneous unbelievers persecuted as they are in Moslem societies. Nowhere else are women afforded so little justice or opportunities for advancement. (If a woman in an Islamic nation achieves status, it is in spite of Islam, not because of it.) Nowhere else is free expression more suppressed in the name of God.

Without empty bigotry and after much reflection I can honestly say I believe a twenty-first-century earth dominated by Islam would be a world plunged into a bleak darkness unknown in fifteen centuries.

It depends on which part of the religion you focus on.  If you look at the two books, the Bible and the Qur'an, they are similar on a basic level.  The Old Testament more than the New.

The problem is that any religion has the power to direct millions of people in one endeavour.  In a good one, like fighting hunger, disease, or poverty it is great.  However, as Jack pointed out, when the focus is on war or "making others conform" to the religion, it is a blight upon mankind.

My stance on Islam is that of every other religion: do whatever you want, so long as you don't bother everybody else with it. I don't believe in any philosophy whose followers think they have the right to tell people how to live their lives and denounces those who choose a different path for themselves. Religions need to start evolving with the rest of humanity. Do any religious texts say anything about cars or indoor plumbing or television or designer clothes? No? Then before anyone starts telling me what's right or wrong based on whatever ancient text they're quoting, they better be dressed in robes, pulling a camel, and living in a tent. This goes for the people using guns and rocket launchers in the name of their religion too. If you love owning your women and hating the rest of the world so much, go back to using swords to spread your message and stop cheating with anti-tank weapons.

I was once told I'd go to Hell while I has a beard, long hair, and was wearing sandals, all by a guy who was wearing a suit, leather shoes, and "bearing the mark of Kane". That's another contention: how can black people so adamantly support a religion that once said they were the source of all evil in the world!? If you can accept the technological advances of man, and you can "forgive" black people for being descendants of one of the most evil people in your centuries old soap opera, then try a little harder and understand that people have also had mental, emotional, and sexual revolutions and they're not evil because of it!

Here's the biggest question to ask any person of any religion: if your deity is so perfect and so right, then why did they allow everybody in the world not involved in your religion to exist? Why are they so many "wrong" people on the Earth if your high-muckity-muck is so right and has the absolute power to make them see the error of their ways on his/her/its own? Why do you think you need to be the mouthpiece or the sword of your "whatever upstairs", if said whatever should be able to do their work themselves? If it was such a big deal, don't you think an omnipotent being would part the clouds, step down to Earth, and hold a global press conference to set everything straight? If that omnipotent super being isn't willing to do so, what makes you think you've got the right to do the same? If your god, whomever they may be, is so perfect and all knowing, then shouldn't you allow him to operate the rest of the world while you stay home and pray? Have you no faith that your god knows what they're doing?! Sounds like blasphemy to me...

The funny thing is that, if Mohammad or Moses or Jesus were on Earth today, talking the same kind of shtick they were millenniums ago, they'd be ignored just like every other psychotic bum on the street begging for change in between rants on condemning us all to eternal suffering. That's the only thing separating the major religions from modern super cults like Scientology: L Ron Hubbard was born 2000 years too late...

Okay, enough with my rant. However you choose to carve the turkey, I'm going to start a religion based on the stories of Hans Christian Andersen. Hell, one group of fairy tales is as good as another, right? They're all meant to provide morals anyway, so why not? The only reason people gave up on ancient mythologies was because there were too many damn deities to keep track of...  :tongueout:

I try never to blame any religion for what some people choose to do with it. There are, and have always been, a lot of greedy, violent, controlling, ignorant, bigoted psychopaths in the world, and they will use whatever tools they can find to control people and justify their crimes.

Don't blame religion for the Crusades, the Inquisition or 9-11. Blame people.

And Anubis, there are plenty of religious people who do believe religion should evolve, that scriptures should be studied in context before applying them to the modern world, that it's all right to think and doubt and question. We believe science and faith are both part of a search for truth and meaning, and need not compete. We're flexible and respect other religions. Unfortunately, we're harder to spot because these very traits make us less loud and pushy.

And to be fair, L. Ron Hubbard, from what I understand, set out to engineer his own religion to exploit people. He was different from Jesus.

IMO, some sects of Islam need to evolve like some of the Western religions have.  Each cult of personality/religion has had a bloodthirsty, not-so-free, expansionist, convert-or-die past, even our "western religions" too.  But, many of these religions/worldviews basically grew up over time.  Some folks just take longer than others. 

Hell, not even 200 years ago "our" religion wasn't too friendly to the religions of the people already living here, just as one example.  That conflict is not really an issue anymore because they're pretty much extinct/converted/assimilated/or relocated. 

But I think there's a little bit of human nature in all of it; it's natural to be tribal (it's more about football now where I live) and aggression is a natural part of all sentient beings, unfortunately.  These natural impulses need a more constructive channel however.  Also, in many of these countries, there is not much difference between state and religion; so in a sense, many are still in the dark ages like "our" Middle Age where, again, there was no difference between Church and State.

But I digress.  My point is that, in our society at least, we've gone through a lot of changes and are much more accepting than we were even 100 years ago where we weren't so tolerant.  A lot can change in a short amount of time and I hope that the more friendly Muslim leaders can police their own a bit better.  Perhaps their liberalisation will come sooner than later.

I know these people are out there. My fiancee's friend is a "born again" who also maintains her common sense and doesn't judge others for disagreeing with her. You people are great! You should be the types of religious people who ARE out there being loud!... just not so much pushy... and not amidst the general public, but more amidst the members of your religions who ARE still living in the dark ages. You're not all bad obviously, you just need better exposure than the freaks like the Jesus Camp people.


Different in their motivations, and that there's evidence Crazy Old Man Hubbard existed, yes. I meant more in the universal way that Jesus and other prophets like Mohammad and Moses did the, "Hey, all you suggestible people! Gather round and let me tell you a story about why you're living your lives wrong..." You know, like Manson and Hitler and David Koresh all manipulated the downtrodden and aimless people around them in the modern age. The saddest part is that, according to the stories, Jesus was the one who wanted people to love and respect one another and it was his own followers who twisted and perverted his words later on to center on violence, fear, and hate mongering. Didn't they also invent the concept of Hell to punish the non-believers after JC croaked? As far as Moses goes, I think he just wanted his people to be free and endure the sufferings of life until the great reward of death, right? I don't know myself, but did Judaism ever go through the revisions and exploitation that Christianity did? That's the other problem I have: when religions do go through massive changes, it always seems to be due to the exploitations of the powerful when they wanted to get a divorce or bang their hot sister-in-law.

Speaking of the Old and New Testaments, I just learned a few months ago that my fiancee's aunt is on my list of infuriating religious people. She thinks that the New Testament is absolute and without fault, but says that the Old Testament is all a bunch of crazy bulls**t... That's like living in a house that has absolutely no foundation! Are there a lot of these people out there who think Christianity is the only way things can be and that Judaism is a bunch of crap, even though their religion was taken directly from it?! Jesus was a Jew! And when you try to explain the logic to the woman, she says we're ganging up on her and harassing her! I know this thread was intended not to include any kind of flaming, which I'm trying not to do, but is reality like acid to these people!?

I don't know, if I'm being offensive then I apologize and I'll make it a point not to engage in religious topics on the board, but as a logical person, religion gives me a headache. So far the only thing I've really heard religiously that I agree with was something I'd heard from Buddhists called the Diamond Sutra that, in it's boiled down state, says that people should always question everything around them, never accept anything as right or wrong, and never believe anyone's opinion but your own and even then only after you've experienced enough from every angle that you feel comfortable to do so. The only rules I follow are the ones that keep me from going to prison as a matter of self-preservation, not because I thinks it moral or immoral to do so. If everybody thinks their position is right, then everybody must be wrong... to which it'd be hypocritical of me not to say that nobody has to think the way I do either, but I can admit that and I don't need to kill or oppress anybody to prove otherwise. Live and let live kids. Throw away your pamphlets, put down your machine guns, and keep religion a private matter away from the public.

I agree that it's ridiculous to knock Judaism as a Christian. Jesus was a practicing Jew. There really was no such thing as a "Christian" at that time. Christianity is based on Judaism, and Judaism shares its roots with Islam. Whether you worship God, Yaweh or Allah, it's the same deity. Understanding the other two can only bring better understanding of your own.

This year, for Maundy Thursday, our church held a potluck dinner in the tradition of a Passover Seder. Not kosher, but as authentic as possible. I heard later on that one of the participants had to defend this to some friends from other churches who had a problem with a Christian church observing a Jewish custom. We were marking the Last Supper, which was....a Passover Seder. You can't take the Jewish influence out of Christianity without losing a lot.

Islam, for that matter, recognizes Jesus as a prophet. It's just that they see Mohammed as the last word in prophets.

If you look at the Sharia'a (thelaws) and the Koran they are actully pretty good guidelines on how to lead a decent life, and as Andrew says, its not THAT different from the Old Testament or the Torah.  As written (revealed?) it is just a way of living by a set of rules:
1) no god but god etc.
2) Do set things (pray to mecca), eat the right stuff, etc. as your personal circumstances permiit.  There are whole commentaries in the Sharia'a where you can justifiably not act 100% by the rules.  But live by the rules and you will be OK. 
3) Believe in Angels.
4) Spread the word (Jihad).  This has been the biggest problem, in my semi-informed opinion.  Somewhere, the concept of Jihad  has changed from "live right and be an example" to "Kill the infidel". 

I think that the extremists are really a big part of the problem.  They are like the clinic bombers, or that family that drives around the country in a bus and protests liberal events with 5 year olds. Only in Islam, not Christianity. I suspect every religion has their noisy fringe.
In my book. whenever someone gets too crazy with the religious imperatives its a bad deal.   Humanist Islam anyone?
-Ed

I think this is the most disgusting part of extremists. The only thing worse than senseless hatred and bigotry is teaching it to children. Kids don't generally have the capacity of free will, they just go by what mommy and daddy say is right. It's an unfortunately legal version of the friggin' Manson Family...

Hey, karma to you Andy for participating in another faith's custom. I support these types of events and I see stories about them on TV. Great. I love it when conflicting sides can walk in the other side's shoes and make the attempt to listen to each other and understand each other.

One thing I have to mention about Christianity in general that bothers me is missionary work. Charity is great. Helping those who can't help themselves? Awesome. Go for it. I'll give a homeless person $20 on pay day when I can. The problem with missionary work? Giving things like food, medicine, homes, schools and so forth to people who need it, then requiring them to convert to your faith as payment. Hmmm, giving something to somebody in exchange for their "eternal" commitment to you? Sounds like something Satan's always getting ragged on for doing. You want that sports car and a hot wife? Sign on the dotted line. Want to not die from starvation or exposure? Here, read this book... Why can't the church just can the missionary stuff and help people out Peace Corps. style? If you really want to help your fellow man, just give him what he needs and let the smile on their face be your reward. Don't give 'em the 8 free introductory CDs then jack up the price and make 'em buy 10 more in the next year! What are you, Columbia House?!  :tongueout:

Thats really cool.  So many poeple forget that religion has to come FROM somewhere. I think we have lost many traditions.  And this one is ga reat one to introduce.  I have always been jealous of my Jewish friend's Hanukkah and Passover traditions.  My family christmas tradtions seem to be paper hats from Christmas crackers and my mother reading a dreary old poem about children dying in the snow.  This Maundy Thursday thing really gets to the heart of it all.  It shows the roots of our traditions.


-Ed

Well, Maundy Thursday is actually a Christian observance that doesn't normally involve Jewish rituals. I believe foot washing usually comes into it. Involving Passover is a way to add a little more perspective.

Missionary work is a tough one. There are Christian groups that do it without the proselytizing, but they aren't as numerous or as vocal about it. The big problem with a lot of the modern perception of Christianity is that we look at history, when everybody was doing this stuff, and we look at Evangelicals, who by definition are in your face with their religion.

I just have to look at my own mother, who belongs to a very mainstream denomination, but of a different generation. She might be considered a "church lady." I used to judge religion based on her interpretation, which was (and still is) narrow, old fashioned and literal, and she was still more open-minded than some of the older church ladies I can remember (she's getting less so with age, however). She has always considered herself a progressive person, and she is pleasant and respectful of others, but she sometimes comes out with comments that baffle me. She's a smart person, but don't get her on the subject of where dinosaurs fit into the creation story. Honestly, that brand of theology put me off church for many years.

I'd guess a lot of people base their early impressions of church on the church ladies, who are very much as Dana Carvey portrayed them. But there aren't as many around as there used to be, at least not in the more liberal denominations.

I probably should stay out of this, but my common sense seems to be lacking something today...

Anubis, I have to respectfully disagree with a few things you've said. First and foremost, Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best documented figures in history. You may choose not to believe the miraculous occurrences attributed to him, but his existence has never been seriously questioned. Groups like the Jesus Seminar use very poor scholarship (i.e., they pull "facts" straight out of their backsides) to claim that Jesus was merely an idealized fictional rabbi. No serious historical scholars that I have seen acknowledge such rubbish. I'm not trying to proselytize here, but Jesus is a historical figure as well as a religious figure. I don't really care (for the purposes of this discussion, at least) whether you believe in God, but get the facts before making claims.

Second, I will agree with you that too many people do horrible things in the name of a religion. If you will go back and look, however, most of the horrors committed by Christians were of a political nature more than a religious nature. The Crusades were about politics much more than they were about spreading a faith. Once the church was forced mostly out of politics, the atrocities ceased for the most part. Christians are people, however, and there will always be idiots in religion, just as there are in every walk of life. Much of what has passed for religion through the ages is simple superstition, and people do stupid things when they are afraid. The Gospels address this, saying that many who think they understand really will never "get it" (Matthew 25).

As for missionary work, I think you put to much emphasis on "forced conversions" (as I read the Bible, there can be no such thing; if you do not come to Christ of your own free will, you cannot come at all). However, try to see this from an evangelist's perspective: "I've found the best answer to the fundamental questions of Life. If I see someone who would benefit from this knowledge, it would be immoral of me not to share." Evangelical Christians believe they have the life preservers and that humanity is drowning. How can you expect them to just "keep their religion private"? You may not agree with them; that is your right. But telling them to keep quiet is, in a way, forcing your beliefs on them. Life is never easy, and no religion can answer every question any more than any secular philosophy can, so opinions will vary on how we ought to behave. That is unavoidable. Your best strategy would be to tell anyone trying to proselytize you that you're not interested. Most will back off. Those that don't are usually the idiots. Verbally abuse them as you see fit.

As far as Islam goes (Wow! I'm finally getting to the thread topic!), of course there are similarities between the Koran and the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament). Mohamed basically took those books and restructured them to revolve around Abraham's first born, Ishmael (born to his wife's slave), rather than around Isaac, who was the "child of the Promise" originally. In doing so, he made the Arab world the focal point of humanity, thereby turning the Jews into "also rans." As has already been said, there are of course peaceful Muslims (most humans want to live safely in peace), but the religion opens itself readily for violence. It may be mainly fringe groups that accept the violent outlook, but the fringe groups are gaining in popularity and power, and the peaceful adherents are doing nothing about it beyond the occasional "but we're peaceful!" declarations.

Besides the name of "Allah" being the name of his tribal Moon God. Islam borrows a lot from both Judism and Christianity. Religiously it doesn't give the world any new insight towards monotheistic religion. It has a few nice verses towards God that at first seem unique to the Koran, but nothing really revelatory in the slightest. Arabs will tell you that you must know the Arabic language to really understand the Koran. There is nothing in the Koran given to me which should make millions flock to it accept peoples ignorance of other religions which would be mostly due to language in many cases. Of course the sword is always persuasive. At the time Mohamed was involved with trade caravans in Mecca. Mecca, which had many different places of worship with idols, statues, and such which he later crushed (cleansed). Judism in that particular region may still have been too racially inclusive for an Arab to really feel at home with it and Mohamed probably decided to make his own religion inspired perhaps out of the desert regions from which he came. Simply destroying all that he felt was unnecessary. He unfortunately took away the very heart of God which is the divine Jesus Christ and made Him a human prophet instead of the Son of God. Mohamed (God) spoke of surrender and mercy, but missed the mark completely. I once heard that he stoned the man in the well/cave who taught him much about religion. I'm wondering if this man may have been a Syrian Christian monk who recognized him as a youth.

Read the whole Book of Judges if you want to read about violence in the name of God.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you." may take on a whole new meaning when faced with radical Islam.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me and the whole world.

"Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best documented figures in history. You may choose not to believe the miraculous occurrences attributed to him, but his existence has never been seriously questioned."

Not an argument I care to get into myself (it's quite a moot point to me) but I know a good many scholars, professionals, and even former ministers in real life and online who would disagree with you.  Of course, they (along with myself) do not accept the Bible as a historically accurate document.  There is an entire forum I visit that addresses such questions from time to time if you're interested.

Not saying he didn't exist, just that there is debate on the existence itself, if the guy's existence is what is the same as what everyone thinks is his existence, and if he said and did the things claimed.  I personally think he existed, but I'm not sure he claimed the things he is said to have <shrugs>.  But there is debate.  But, as you state, there is much more debate on the whole divinity question.

Here's a few conversations about it, but I honestly haven't read the entire threads in quite awhile:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-atheism&tid=39986

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-atheism&tid=40188

My problem with that is that I've never been shown facts per say to substantiate the claim that the man ever lived. The few notations to Christ I've ever heard in an history class I've ever been in was that Christianity apparently thought so little of the man that they moved around the dates of his birth and death solely as an attempt to convert Pagans. If you know of any unbiased evidence that the man really existed, I'd appreciate a link to any of said information so I can further educate myself on the topic. Additionally, if the man did exist, I have no doubt that he was a charismatic snake-oil salesman who knew it's easier to catch the ear of the elite once you've rallied the hopeless and downtrodden first, he wasn't white (a white guy in the Middle East?!), but that the stories of his miraculous alchemy, levitation, and zombie-making skills are as real as the stories of Hercules, Superman, or anything any Dungeon Master has ever conjured up.


My point is that you can do nice things for people without preaching to them, and you can tell other people about how much you like your religion without waving a cure for their disease in front of their face while you're doing it. If all of this stuff is only true of the extremists, then the moderates need to start piping up and distancing themselves from said extremists so outsiders like me can start hearing about it. Stop giving the nut jobs all the air time and maybe there won't be so many haters!  :teddyr:

That's my biggest beef with the literalists. Half the time, they beat you over the head with things that were revised at some point in history for political reasons, badly translated to Latin, then to English, or just plain taken out of context. But it isn't just the bible thumpers who are guilty of that. Their biggest critics are just as incapable of making a distinction between fact and truth. There can be truth without facts, as in a fictional story. Being fictional does not render it false, nor do its truths automatically make it factual.

Whether everything in the bible really happened that way is not the point at all.

I know practically nothing about Islam.  I'm not really interested in any organised religion, regardless of what it is. All religions are based on fear and guilt and that's when you get extremists. 

No thanks.

I find it amusing that many of the most vicious critics of Christianity have never actually read the Gospels.  Sadly, I don't have time to address all the many good questions and points raised in this thread - maybe more later, but my daughter is waiting for me to help her with her homework.  Let me say this - there is very good historical, archeological, and textual evidence to believe that the four gospels contained in the New Testament accurately record the life and witness of Jesus Christ.  There are, I believe, five or six NON-Christian sources that mention the life and death of Jesus that were penned within a century or less of his lifetime (that sounds paltry in today's mass media world, but remember, there are fewer than 500 written documents of ANY sort from that region of the world during that time-span that have survived to the present day, and half of those are either in the New Testament or were written by Christians living early in the Second Century.  As for this very tired old line about "the Gospels have been edited, altered, translated, retranslated, and thoroughly butchered" - it's provably untrue.  The fact is that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.5% from the time of its composition. 
  Let me give a quick example of the accuracy of Scriptural transmission before I have to scoot and face the mysteries of Seventh Grade grammar!  Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumram in 1948, the oldest copy of the Book of Isaiah dated to about 1300 AD.  No older copies were known to exist.  When the caves at Qumram were discovered, there were, among the 10,000 manuscripts and fragments found there, two complete copies of the Book of Isaiah, both dated to around 100 BC.  That is a 1400 year gap!!!! During that time, the manuscript had been passed down from generation to generation, copied by hand the whole time.  Everyone was waiting with bated breath to see how "messed up" our modern Old Testamen would be compared to this ancient text.
  What they found was that fewer than 1 word in a thousand had changed at all.  The changes that were there were mostly very minor variations in spelling and grammar, and the most radical deviation from the original text did not change in any way the meaning of the verse in which it occurred - it restated the same idea in slightly different terms.  While not all modern translations are as accurate as some, the Greek and Hebrew texts scholars work from today have been passed down from the originals virtually unchanged . . .

Anubis, I will address some of your comments about Jesus himself, and about medical missionaries,  later, if time allows.  If you want me to.  I'm certainly not trying to bash you, belittle you, or irritate you.  But I think your earlier posts contain some serious misinformation.

A friend of mine back in high school put it best: the Bible is one of the greatest works of fiction he's ever read. Just like Aesop's Fables, the Koran, and Tales From the Crypt (to bring it back to Forum terms), it's a collection of morality tales that try to put existence into perspective via the writer's personal opinions. It reminds me of The Great Gatsby. In my Junior high school English class, our teacher made sure to point out everything that had a hidden meaning in the book. The problem though is that when someone would say, "Well, couldn't the color green maybe mean this instead?", he would go into stubborn old man mode and tell us that we were wrong and the book is to be interpreted exactly as HE said they were. Inflexibility is the bane of education.  :drink:

By all means Indy, I'm always open to hearing counterpoints! I welcome an open exchange of ideas and opinions and I look forward to it. I'm just glad I can't be targeted with witch trials for anything I'm saying.  :wink:

Though nobody's yet explained to me why none of these various higher powers have come down to Earth to straighten out who's right or wrong yet. And if he/she/they don't appreciate my question, I invite them to step down, get with the smiting and prove me wrong. I've been waiting for some of this righteous wrath firsthand! Then again, I'm pretty sure that even if one of 'em (or all of 'em for that matter) did make their presence known, I can see a situation where detractors worldwide like Rush Limbaugh would still call this all powerful force wrong. Then again, are Gods like Tinkerbell and they can't appear until enough people in the world believe in one or the other, hence why they rely on we shaved apes to do all their talking for them?  :teddyr:

From Anubis: "Though nobody's yet explained to me why none of these various higher powers have come down to Earth to straighten out who's right or wrong yet. And if he/she/they don't appreciate my question, I invite them to step down, get with the smiting and prove me wrong. "

BINGO!!!!!  You just hit the jackpot!  God did step down to earth - but He came to heal, not to harm.  Read the first chapter of John's gospel - just the first 18 verses, if you like.  It begins like this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  It concludes with these lines: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

   Those lines were written around 90 AD, when John was the last survivor of the original 12 apostles.  Jesus was crucified around AD 30.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke had all composed their gospels about 25 - 25 years later, and John was familiar with what they had written.  He was also familiar with the Gnostics, the first splinter cult to break off from Christianity, who insisted that Jesus was a purely spiritual being who never had a physical body.  The elderly apostle, knowing his years on earth were drawing to a close, wrote what I consider the most beautiful book in the history of the world, to prove one thing: that Jesus Christ was, in fact, God come down to earth in a human body.  He then proceeds to prove his case by laying down eyewitness testimony of what he saw Jesus say and do, and of seven miraculous signs, each more impressive than the last, demonstrating Jesus's divine nature.  Finally, Jesus' triumph over death is presented as the ultimate proof that He was who He claimed to be: God the Son, immortal incarnate.  John may have been old, but he was sharp, and he presented an incredibly convincing case that Jesus was the Son of God.

Here's what it boils down to:  If Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, as every ancient source both Christian and non-Christian, seems to indicate He did, then He was indeed the Son of God.  If not, he's just a crazy dead rabbi, and I might as well be praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all the good it does me.


One last note, on medical mssionaries - they give comfort and aid, medicine and food, to all who come to them, regardless of race, creed, or color.  After attending to physical needs, they try to share the gospel, according to the Great Commission given by Christ.  Forced conversion was never intended to be part of the program.  But the model given in Scripture is that believers should minister to all needs - first to the physical, then to the spiritual.  What kind of doctor would treat you for a splinter in your finger and not try to treat a deadly infection in another part of the body?  From the Christian perspective, sin is a cancer of the sould that is 100% curable through the grace of God.  It would be immoral not to offer the cure, but it would be just as immoral to force it on someone who doesn't want it.

I hope this explains where I'm coming from.  I realize it is a bit of a detour from where this thread started, so let me come full circle here:

Allah is a God who asks you to send your son to die for him.
The God of the Bible sent His Son to die for you.

That, in the end, is the difference.

In Islam they believe the Koran actually came down from heaven in book form and that it was not written down by any man. Mohamed is said to have been illiterate.

 :thumbup:

Agreed. There are very good translations. But I wouldn't count the King James among them, and a lot of people see that as the one true Bible. My intention was not to say that the stories are fictional, rather that arguing over whether they are fictional or not is a waste of time. People need to stop worrying about the details and look for the meaning. Does it really make any difference if it all happened exactly as described. Not to me.

Not quite true.  According to Muslim historians, the Quran was spoken by Muhammad and memorized down by his followers, then written down about 20 years later.  I have little doubt it has accurately passed down what Muhammad said.  The Hadith, however - the stories of Muhammad's life - are not as reliable, since some of them were not written down until centuries later.

Andy C - "Agreed. There are very good translations. But I wouldn't count the King James among them, and a lot of people see that as the one true Bible. My intention was not to say that the stories are fictional, rather that arguing over whether they are fictional or not is a waste of time. People need to stop worrying about the details and look for the meaning. Does it really make any difference if it all happened exactly as described. Not to me."

The King James was a  remarkable piece of scholarship for its time, but the English language has changed so much the KJV has lost a great deal of its meaning.  Also, modern translators have five times the manuscript material to work with than their contemporaries 400 years ago.  I personally favor the New American Standard - not the most readable version, but the translators made a painstaking effort to follow the original Greek as closely as possible.  But, if it all happened exactly as described, it should make some difference to you.  Because  God broke into the world in a supernatural way for your sake as much as for mine, and is holding out a free ticket to eternity with your name on  it . . . .

I'm not a scholar and I tend to look at the grist of things and  my one comment about all those Bible stories I grew up reading is this,  mankind hasn't changed a lot in the last 6000 years.  Almost anything that is going on now is mentioned in there.

As far as Islam, I haven't studied it and can only judge it personally by the few Muslims I've known, but they were all pretty much Americanized. 

The average Muslim believes the book (the Koran) came down literally from heaven in printed book form. Ask most any Muslim believer and they will tell you this is fact.

There were also those Koran verses that were written down on animal bone fragments since they didn't have access to paper out in the desert. These bones with verses were gathered up and put together in a book by his immediate followers.


Been involved with religion for more than 23 years and have never felt "fear" nor "guilt" in relationship to faith in God. Being a zealot (extremist) has more to do with ego than true faith.

One should have "fear" to a certain degree of being separated from God for eternity. This is called wisdom, but if you are in true faith then there is no real "fear".

No one is perfect and therefore everyone is actually guilty. This is more knowledge based than an emotionally based element of Christianity. All are made perfect by God through Jesus the Christ.

The New American Standard is without a doubt a very accurate translation of the scriptures. For accessibility, I rather like the Contemporary English Version. Not as lyrical as the King James I knew growing up, but it succeeds very well as a translation into modern English. It is very easily understood by the average reader.

That really is the trade-off with scriptural translations, accuracy vs. readability. The NAS sought to come as close to a word-for-word translation as possible, while the CEV aimed to be a true English version. Both have their merits.

Regarding your other point, it really isn't important to me that everything in the bible is the literal truth. If Jesus was just a great teacher and philosopher, does that diminish the value of what he had to say? If he was not divine at all, does it mean we've wasted our time being Christians? I don't think so.

Andy C - "Regarding your other point, it really isn't important to me that everything in the bible is the literal truth. If Jesus was just a great teacher and philosopher, does that diminish the value of what he had to say? If he was not divine at all, does it mean we've wasted our time being Christians? I don't think so. "

There I must respectfully disagree.  When Jesus said things like "Before Abraham was, I AM!" and "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but through me;" or "I and the Father are one;" or "He that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" - anyone who says that kind of stuff is either the biggest liar who ever lived, or else flat out nuts and ready for the rubber room - OR ELSE, they are exactly who they claim to be and what they are saying is the truth.  If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the He wasn't a great philosopher or even a good man - he was either a deliberate charlatan or else a madman.

I would strongly recommend to anyone who is truly curious about the historical evidences for Jesus and the accuracy of the New Testamen to look into two books - THE CASE FOR CHRIST by Lee Strobel and HE WALKED AMONG US by Josh McDowell.  They make the case far more effectively than this old country boy.

---This is a generated post, please do not reply---

Dear ________ (insert customer name here)

A subaltern of ours reported your doubts. Right now we are rather busy, but we want to ensure you, that we will resume our smiting business as soon as possible and will deal personally with your case. If you prefer to be handled more timely, you may also report to one of our globally abundant branch office and one of our appointees will gladly smite you directly.

Kind regards

________ (insert name of preferred deity here)

It looks like His Worship has posted on BAD movies...wait a minute....nah...Bela Lugosi's dead....

Menard, did you really think some of us wouldn't know it was you?
The fact that you quoted Anubis was a dead giveaway.

Existential karma to "Your Deity" for lightening the moment!

Andy, have you ever checked out the Jefferson Bible.  Thomas Jefferson edited the Gospels down in an attempt to get at the philosophy of Jesus, leaving out all the supernatural elements.  You may find it interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Jefferson definitely anticipated the "Jesus Seminar" folks in that regard.  he didn't believe in the supernatural, so he took out all supernatural elements of the Bible.  In the process, he robbed Jesus of everything that made him unique and turned him into just another philosopher.  The one thing that becomes clear when you study the New Testament era is that Jesus' followers NEVER regarded him as simply a great teacher or philosopher . . . their reverence for him was based on an unwavering belief that he was the Son of God, and that belief came from the fact that they saw him do supernatural things.  Taking the miraculous out of the life of Jesus is like taking golf out of the life of Tiger Woods. :teddyr:

What puzzles me about islam is that Jesus is viewed as a Prophet and they also view the Gospels as one of their holy books(they believe that the Torah was the first book given by god, the Gospels the second, and the Quran is supposed to be the final book from god). But even though the Quaran is supposed to be the final version they still are supposed to heed the teachings of earlier prophets. So wouldn't that mean that the extremeists had to heed the teachings of Jesus?
I'm assuming they found a loop hole, but their extremeists so who can understand thier reasoning?
And Menard why keep posting as a guest? 

Many Christians do the same thing with the Old Testament and New Testament. The argument is that it became a whole new ballgame when Jesus arrived, and anything he said trumps what came before. Muslims do the same thing with Mohammed.

At his death Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, which was a covenant made with the Hebrews not with Christians. So Jesus does trump the Old Testament for Christians. 

Most of what I said about the Koran was more of a historical belief thing, but to be totally honest about Islamic people. Back in the 80's I had many Islamic friends while in the Taxi business in Atlantic City. My best friends were from Egypt and these people where the most personally honest people I have ever met. They were quite possibly my best friends I ever had. When I was young I had many American friends, but I tell you the truth these people recognize and appreciate good people and they return like actions. I was always very impress by them all. I'm speaking more specifically about the Egyptians. Though I had many Islamic friends from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Afghanistan who were also good people. It was the Egyptians that would do anything for me as far as friendship goes and I dare say I have never had the same feeling from my own culture. In the end they gained nothing from me except my friendship and respect and many eventually moved on as most of them were engineers moving towards Virginia. When they left they gave me an excellent copy of and Arabic/English Koran. Some of the Koran verses are very beautiful and the psychology of the text is unique, but that doesn't necessarily convey truth.

I have known many good and decent Muslims and was good friends with a Muslim couple that lived in the apartment next to ours in college.  Still, the teachings of the Quran do encourage religious violence, and Islam spread by conquest from the get-go.  The violent forced conversions did not creep into Christianity until the Church abandoned the clear teachings of Scripture in the Middle Ages.

As far as the Quranic teachings on the New Testament, they hold that the original injil (teachings) of Jesus, as recorded in the first gospels, were accurate, but that they were corrupted and distorted in order to turn Jesus, the Prophet of God, into Jesus, the Son of God (Of course, there is no evidence of tampering or additions to the original manuscripts, see my earlier post on textual accuracy). They also claim that the Gospel of Barnabas, a 7th Century text that no reputable Bible scholar regards as authentic, is actually the original account.  Most secular and Christian scholars recognize that the Gospel of Barnabas was a Muslim text authored sometime after Muhammad's death in 632 AD to give a Muslim version of Jesus' life.

I guess the one thing that is the hardest for most liberal-thinking Americans to accept is that not all religions can be true at the same time.  If Muhammad was a prophet, then Jesus cannot be the Son of God, and if Jesus was the Son of God, then Muhammad was no prophet . .  . or at least, not a prophet of God.

To say that all religions are equally true, even when their tenets clearly contradict one another, has long puzzled me. It can be argued, I suppose, that all religions probably have an equal shot at being The One True Faith, but at the same time how can more than one be completely and unerringly true? Impossible.

I have a close friend who has flirted with becoming a member of the Baha'i faith, and while I respect his choice and see much that is good in Baha'i, the Baha'i doctrine that all religions are equally valid as pathways to the divine doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Relating to indy's comments on how so many fail to perceive that the universality of truth when it comes in contradictory form is an impossibility, it's also surprisingly difficult for those who have come of age in the era of "embrace diversity" to come out and call something evil, even when it clearly is. I'm not calling Islam evil, here, but I've noticed a trend among those my age and slightly younger to extend tolerance to Islamic-sponsored acts of violence and repression, all because it has been instilled in an entire generation that others who differ from us must be respected for those differences, no matter what.

All I know is they can't all be right but they can all be wrong  :cheers:

That comes back to my comments on the Resurrection (see my Easter thread).  The reason I am a Christian is because the Resurrection proved to me that the claims made by Jesus of Nazareth about being the Son of God are all true.  The historical evidence for the Resurrection is really overwhelming, when you begin to dig into it.

On the other hand, when it comes to Muhammad, there is never any proof given that he was a prophet - just his own self-justifying claims.  In fact, he even says at one point that the Quran itself is miracle enough, and refused to give any further signs.  The stories that do have Muhammad performing miracles are all from the later Hadith, which were composed anwhere from one to four CENTURIES after his death.  Even some Muslim scholars question their historical accuracy.

 :smile: Very interesting topic, Ash.  :thumbup:

When I was still at college in the late 1980's, my church youth group leader took a call the one day: it was the Imam of the Pretoria Mosque who invited him and us to come and visit them when we had a church meeting again. Laurence (our leader) told the Imam that we had ladies in our group and as far as he knew, women were not allowed in the mosque. The Imam burst out laughing and asked Laurence where he had heard that, as women were most welcome in that mosque in particular: the Imam went further to say that women were the most precious of God's creatures.

We went and enjoyed an hour of fellowship with them and yes, the ladies were most welcome there. I learnt a lot: I never knew that Muslims consider my God to be a prophet of theirs and that they believe in the Virgin Mary and the virgin birth.

One of our national sports heroes is a chap named Hashim Amla who is a devout Muslim: you can see this by his shaved head and long beard. He cannot drink alcohol at all, so the "Castle Beer" advertising logo that appears on the shirts of the other players does not appear on his. Nice guy: he also stated that his long beard is to honour the prophets Mohammed, Jesus and Moses.  :thumbup:

Yes, Islam does indeed hold the highest regard towards the Virgin Mary. Higher than even more than our bible Christians honor her. There is a Islamic Iman/Cleric in India who wrote a book on how Jesus is superior to Mohamed as far as being a prophet is concerned. Islam also believes that Jesus will return in the end just as Christians do, except they believe Him to be a prophet and not the Son Of God which He is according to my faith.

By the way the Catholic Church is reporting that Islam now out numbers Catholics. See news story below.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/muslims-outnumber-worlds-catholics/20080330161309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/muslims-outnumber-worlds-catholics/20080330161309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

A shame all that good will Moslems (again Farsi pronunciation) have toward the Virgin Mary doesn't extend to ordinary women, who in most Moslem countries cannot drive cars, vote, own property, have equal access to education, and in many cases marry whom they wish, seek redress before the courts in the event of spousal abuse, have representative standing under law, or even, despite the liberalism of the mosque cited above, enter holy ground on equal terms with a man in order to make obeisance to their god.

Very true. No doubt the treatment of their women is the most abhorant situation in Islam. This is actually worst than the terrorism in my opinion. All of those nations forfeit their sovereignty by this very crime.