The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >   Reply to this topic

Equality for Islamic women!

At last a significant step forward!!!

Bsmith
post 13.Jan.2019, 10:15 AM
Post #16
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

rim shot
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 13.Jan.2019, 01:48 PM
Post #17
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 12.Jan.2019, 03:57 PM) *
I remember reading somewhere that Einstein, in his later years, came to be a believer of God.


Yeah, this was a lie put about by certain religious groups similar to the smears against people like Darwin who was erroneously said to have renounced his theory of Evolution on his death bed and even more recently with the late, great Christopher Hitchens who also had his beliefs egregiously misrepresented once his death meant that he could no longer counter the mistruths. You see, whilst lying is seen as a sin, for some fundamentalists lying for Jesus is a virtue.

In truth, Einstein did not believe in a god or gods he instead used the term in a kind of pantheistic way as a short cut for the rules of nature. He did not have religious beliefs; he was what is known as an "agnostic atheist" although it is true that he prefered to describe himself as simply "agnostic". Etymologically speaking "atheism" is a response to the position of "theism". A theist is someone that holds the belief that a god or gods exist. Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist; the "a" at the beginning of the word meaning "not". The atheist position is not the counter position that a god or gods do not exist just as a court verdict of "not guilty" does not imply that a defendant is innocent but rather that he has not been demonstrated to have been guilty.

The term "agnostic" simply means not knowing deriving as it does from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning knowledge. Used on its own, it doesn't mean anything as it lacks a subject but coupled with atheism (or indeed theism) it denotes an existential belief position regarding a god or gods but without a claim of knowledge; a subset of belief. Therefore an agnostic atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a god or gods but does not claim to know this as fact. An agnostic theist would be someone who does believe in a god or gods but doesn't claim this as fact. Agnosticism can be used in various other fields too. I am agnostic with regards to life on other planets for example or whether the number of needles on the pine tree that I can see from my window is odd or even. In my line of work, you hear the terms "format" or "platform" agnostic meaning that the data format or native platform is not known.

Personally, I would describe my general position also as being an agnostic atheist as whilst I do not believe in a deity of any form, I do not claim to know that such an entity does not exist. However with regard to certain god claims such as the classical theism ones foisted upon me as a child sent to Sunday School I would claim knowledge that these do not exist based upon the paradoxical nature of some of the claims made about such a deity. For example, any god that is claimed to be omnipotent cannot possibly exist as omnipotence is a logical impossibility.



QUOTE (Bsmith @ 12.Jan.2019, 03:57 PM) *
Also I think that the Bible is more than just a collection of stories. It is a blueprint for a successful society.


Not sure about that. The bible is a pretty horrific book if you actually read it. Jesus himself is clearly supportive of slavery instructing slaves to submit to their masters rather than decreeing slavery to be a sin. It demands the burning of witches and the killing of homosexuals. It says that a raped woman should marry her rapist, that a woman who cannot prove her virginity on her wedding night should be stoned and that a woman who doesn't cry for help loud enough while being rape should also be killed. It is a horrible book full to the brim with barbarism and inhumanity. Although cherry-picked quotes from the Bible are used to create the illusion that Christianity is all love and peace, this is totally at odds with the book at large and even Jesus who is supposed to have himself said that he did not "come to bring peace but a sword". Society is successful in spite of the Bible rather than because of it.

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 12.Jan.2019, 03:57 PM) *
And, of course, there is the Golden Rule: do onto others as you would have done to yourself. You really can't do much better than that for a standard to follow.


Cherry-picked quotes such as this one. Sure it is not a bad standard to follow but it is one that predates Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years at least back to Babylonian times 1700 years before. It is not an original biblical concept but was a well established and widespread principle long before biblical times. Of course, it doesn't apply if the other person is gay... coz then you should kill them and I'm pretty sure that anyone would want that done unto them!

Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 13.Jan.2019, 02:02 PM
Post #18
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Jamtjim @ 13.Jan.2019, 12:48 PM) *
The bible is a pretty horrific book if you actually read it. Jesus himself is clearly supportive of slavery instructing slaves to submit to their masters rather than decreeing ... (show full quote)



Yes, there are some horrible verses in the Old Testament. That is one of the reasons Jesus came to Earth to correct the mess that man had made in terms of religious laws. Jesus is quoted as saying that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else is secondary.

Of course, each person is entitled to their own beliefs.

Good to hear from you again, Jamtjim.
Go to the top of the page
+
Saywhatwhat
post 13.Jan.2019, 02:29 PM
Post #19
Joined: 15.Feb.2018

Yes, the golden rule, Hammurabi’s code. Pre dates Bible by a lot. So do other “successful” civilizations. Societal success has nothing to do with the Bible. I agree with the other person and think successes have come in spite of Bible

Hammurabi’s code, written as a code of conduct, a form of control... just as the Bible, written and disseminated as a form of control.

Don’t even look at the Bible for violence... look at all the violence the Bible has caused. It’s probably Islam’s fault and all other peoples and religions fault for not bending over backwards and submitting to Christianity and it’s “teachings”

But the golden rule... I don’t agree with it and think it should be revised to... do unto others as others want done unto them.
Go to the top of the page
+
Saywhatwhat
post 13.Jan.2019, 02:32 PM
Post #20
Joined: 15.Feb.2018

huh.gif
 
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 13.Jan.2019, 03:38 PM
Post #21
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

Hi Bsmith and thanks for the kind welcome back.

There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly Jesus's condonation of slavery is New Testament. Instead of instructing slaves to obey their masters (Colossians 3:22) perhaps the conduit of God's will should have instead said "Look guys, owning people as property is wrong". But he didn't. Perhaps Jesus should have preached that homosexuality was not a sin punishable by death. But he didn't.

Contrary to what you have claimed that Jesus came to earth to correct religious laws, he himself said that the opposite is the case:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Matthew 5:17

Jesus's position is unequivocally that the barbaric laws of the Old Testament with all the evil they entailed would remain unchanged. Just think how much human suffering could have been avoided had Jesus said that homosexuality was ok, or that contraception was not a sin or that witches did not exist but he didn't do any of this. If the will of God was in line with our modern, more enlightened views of fairness and reason, then why did Jesus not say as much.

In truth, Jesus refected the very human views of the people in the cultural backwater where he lived. Whilst it might be argued that he may have been slightly more liberal than those around him, he was far from it when compared to a modern-day morality. The question is therefore, why didn't he, being divine and all that, preach an ultimate morality, forbidding slavery, dispelling ignorant prejudice against gays and allowing potentially life-saving contraception. He was God after all if this was his opinion why did he preach the exact opposite?

Yes these days we have the right to have our own beliefs but again this is in spite of religious teachings which state the exact opposite with the old laws as condoned by Jesus demanding the death penalty for apostasy for example:

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people." - Deuteronomy 13:6-9

Even in mainstream Christianity, belief rather than conduct is the only prerequisite for entry to Heaven with all non-believers being tortured for eternity... simply for not sharing the same belief. So yes, we all have a right to our own beliefs thanks to reasoned, secular legislature rather than religious commandment.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 13.Jan.2019, 05:39 PM
Post #22
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

Welcome home!!!
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 13.Jan.2019, 05:54 PM
Post #23
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE (Gamla Hälsingebock @ 13.Jan.2019, 05:39 PM) *
Welcome home!!!


Thanks Gamla, but to be fair I don't really regard The Local as home... it's more like a Travel Lodge where I stay when all the decent hotels are booked up!
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 13.Jan.2019, 06:05 PM
Post #24
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Jamtjim @ 13.Jan.2019, 02:38 PM) *
Contrary to what you have claimed that Jesus came to earth to correct religious laws, he himself said that the opposite is the case:"Think not that I am come to destroy t ... (show full quote)



And on many occasions, it was reported that Jesus verbally dismissed the Pharisees. Most notably in Matthew 23-29:

Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

4 They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. 5 Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels[a] for everyone to see. 6 They love the best seats at banquets and the front seats in the meeting places. 7 And when they are in the market, they like to have people greet them as their teachers.

8 But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters. 9 Don’t call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven. 10 None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader. 11 Whoever is the greatest should be the servant of the others. 12 If you put yourself above others, you will be put down. But if you humble yourself, you will be honored.

13-14 You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourselves, and you keep others from going in.[b]

15 You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You travel over land and sea to win one follower. And when you have done so, you make that person twice as fit for hell as you are.

16 You are in for trouble! You are supposed to lead others, but you are blind. You teach that it doesn’t matter if a person swears by the temple. But you say that it does matter if someone swears by the gold in the temple. 17 You blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred?

18 You also teach that it doesn’t matter if a person swears by the altar. But you say that it does matter if someone swears by the gift on the altar. 19 Are you blind? Which is more important, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Anyone who swears by the altar also swears by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple also swears by God, who lives there. 22 To swear by heaven is the same as swearing by God’s throne and by the one who sits on that throne.

23 You Pharisees and teachers are show-offs, and you’re in for trouble! You give God a tenth of the spices from your garden, such as mint, dill, and cumin. Yet you neglect the more important matters of the Law, such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness. These are the important things you should have done, though you should not have left the others undone either. 24 You blind leaders! You strain out a small fly but swallow a camel.

25 You Pharisees and teachers are show-offs, and you’re in for trouble! You wash the outside of your cups and dishes, while inside there is nothing but greed and selfishness. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of a cup, and then the outside will also be clean.

27 You Pharisees and teachers are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You’re like tombs that have been whitewashed.[c] On the outside they are beautiful, but inside they are full of bones and filth. 28 That’s what you are like. Outside you look good, but inside you are evil and only pretend to be good.

29 You Pharisees and teachers are nothing but show-offs, and you’re in for trouble! You build monuments for the prophets and decorate the tombs of good people. 30 And you claim that you would not have taken part with your ancestors in killing the prophets. 31 But you prove that you really are the relatives of the ones who killed the prophets. 32 So keep on doing everything they did. 33 You are nothing but snakes and the children of snakes! How can you escape going to hell?
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 13.Jan.2019, 06:16 PM
Post #25
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

Wasn't he trying to begin another new world order???

Christianity was the impetus for the invention of the Islamic ideals...another form of new world order...

However neither concept brought about what it was expected to do...

We are still at each other's throats about the way we conduct our lives...

Pacem in Terris...Anyone???
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 13.Jan.2019, 06:37 PM
Post #26
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

Yes, it is fair to say that at least according to the Bible, Jesus was critical of the behaviour of the Pharisees, the political movement responsible for the implementation of Judaic law at the time. In fact, according to scripture that is what eventually led to him being executed. He was not however critical of the barbaric laws themselves instead he was unequivocably supportive of them. This led to his open support for slavery that I mentioned previously.

That is an important distinction. Obviously, he should have been critical of both if the Old Laws which demanded stonings and killings for "crimes" such as being gay or not crying load enough whilst being raped. But he wasn´t, he was supportive of them and indicated unambiguously that they should not be changed.

The Biblical portrayal is of a man with the morals of the time... which puts him at odds with as what we hold to be morally acceptable today. So either he was correct and slavery was ok, being gay was rightly punishable by death, and women could be brutally killed for relatively minor sexual infractions (or being raped) or he was not. This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion, either this was and is the will of an ogre God (him being eternal and unchanging and all of that), that he lied about the will of God and deliberately misled countless generations for thousands of years (not out of the question as he deliberately misled his own disciples into thinking that he would return within their lifetimes) or, most likely, that he was just a normal non-deistic man spouting his take on the laws of the time whilst largely being supportive of them.

Any way you put it it doesn't paint him in a particularly good light and is a long way from what modern believers want themselves and others to believe about his nature.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 13.Jan.2019, 06:56 PM
Post #27
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

The problem with religion is that it is too political!!!
Go to the top of the page
+
Saywhatwhat
post 13.Jan.2019, 08:41 PM
Post #28
Joined: 15.Feb.2018

Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin and Judaism is the thumb that flipped it.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 13.Jan.2019, 09:22 PM
Post #29
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Jamtjim @ 13.Jan.2019, 06:37 PM) *
He was not however critical of the barbaric laws themselves instead he was unequivocably supportive of them. This led to his open support for slavery that I mentioned previou ... (show full quote)



Perhaps he was and this aspect of his message was never recorded...or deleted. One must remember that the Bible is a collection of scripts written by different authors, over time and has been abridged by different authorities. Also, the Bible is somewhat cryptic and subject to individual interpretation.
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 13.Jan.2019, 10:26 PM
Post #30
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 13.Jan.2019, 09:22 PM) *
Perhaps he was and this aspect of his message was never recorded...or deleted. One must remember that the Bible is a collection of scripts written by different authors, over ... (show full quote)


Yes, that could be quite a plausible explaination... had Jesus been simply a man. But that is not the claim that Christians make. They claim that he was divine and either was a mouthpiece for God or even a manifestation of God himself.

Now imagine you are God and have an important message to get across to humankind regarding how you want them to treat each other. Would you trust it to "a collection of scripts written by different authors over time"? Would you make this vital information "cryptic and subject to individual interpretation"? What's more, the Christain God is claimed to be omniscient... he is supposed to know everything. Here is where it gets really quite troubling if you go down this line; the implication is that Jesus/God chose to share his will via a system that he would have known perfectly well would be edited and misunderstood so that pronouncements such as "slavery is wrong" or "being gay is fine" are completely and totally misunderstood as that "slavery is fine" and "gays should be killed".

What we are left with is either a fantastically incompetent God who wants to broadcast his message of anti-slavery and opposition to homophobia but instead gives his followers the exact opposite view of his will or you are left with an evil monster of a God whose views are completely at odds with what we would call moral.

Yes, these important proclamations could have been excluded from the scriptorial record, but only if Jesus lacked divinity or else if the Christian God had deemed it so... knowing full well that this omission would lead to the horrors of slavery and the hideous deaths of countless gay people, people deemed to be "witches" and raped women just to scrape the surface. Simple logical deduction shows that he/she must be either non-existent, incompetent or a monster. I know which one I'm going for!
Go to the top of the page
+

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: