Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ Miscellaneous _ Equality for Islamic women!

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 9.Jan.2019, 12:57 AM

How thoughtful, does this include "unfriending" too???



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-arabia-law-women-notified-divorce_us_5c3366d5e4b0733528355379

Posted by: Uncle Fred 9.Jan.2019, 01:17 AM

QUOTE (Gamla Hälsingebock @ 9.Jan.2019, 12:57 AM) *
How thoughtful, does this include "unfriending" too???



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-arabia-law-women-notified-divorce_us_5c3366d5e4b0733528355379

Sorry don't use sites where you cant opt out of cookies. So cant read it.

But here's a story about Islamic women.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46789875

Oh and this one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46790542

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 9.Jan.2019, 02:01 AM

Try "session only" cookies...

Posted by: BlackfDes 9.Jan.2019, 10:43 AM

Shouldn't equality apply to ALL religions and reflect the female-to-male proportion of most populations [approximately 51:49]?

Why isn't there a female Pope? What about the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Which religions allow females to be pastors/priests/leaders?

Which religions allow same sex marriage and preside over them?

Which religions allow females choice over whether or not to have a baby in regards to birth control and abortion?

Its a mixed bag unfortunately and one of the many reasons I am an atheist!

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/02/women-relatively-rare-in-top-positions-of-religious-leadership/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/religion-has-a-woman-problem/2013/03/08/dd5e4fb2-87f1-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b1794c363f6

Posted by: Uncle Fred 9.Jan.2019, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (BlackfDes @ 9.Jan.2019, 10:43 AM) *
Shouldn't equality apply to ALL religions and reflect the female-to-male proportion of most populations [approximately 51:49]?

Why isn't there a female Pope? What about the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Which religions allow females to be pastors/priests/leaders?

Which religions allow same sex marriage and preside over them?

Which religions allow females choice over whether or not to have a baby in regards to birth control and abortion?

Its a mixed bag unfortunately and one of the many reasons I am an atheist!

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/02/women-relatively-rare-in-top-positions-of-religious-leadership/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/religion-has-a-woman-problem/2013/03/08/dd5e4fb2-87f1-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b1794c363f6

All very good points, however the links only speak for the US and no where else.

Posted by: Bsmith 9.Jan.2019, 02:00 PM

QUOTE (BlackfDes @ 9.Jan.2019, 10:43 AM) *
control and abortion?

one of the many reasons I am an atheist!


It is sometimes very hard to have faith. If you believe in God as I do, sometimes it helps to remember that religion is man's attempt to explain something beyond his understanding.

Posted by: Bsmith 9.Jan.2019, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Uncle Fred @ 9.Jan.2019, 01:17 AM) *
Sorry don't use sites where you cant opt out of cookies. So cant read it.

But here's a story about Islamic women.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46789875

Oh and this one.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46790542



According to Sharia law, a woman's worth is 1/2 of a man. It takes two women to refute one man's testimony.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 9.Jan.2019, 02:59 PM

I posted that as an example of kindness, understanding and the impact modern technical devices have on us today...

Divorce by texting!!!...Really???

Who said Islam was backward??? laugh.gif

Posted by: Uncle Fred 9.Jan.2019, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 9.Jan.2019, 02:00 PM) *
It is sometimes very hard to have faith. If you believe in God as I do, sometimes it helps to remember that religion is man's attempt to explain something beyond his understanding.

Is that the same as saying, someone who doesn't need good understands everything.

Posted by: BlackfDes 9.Jan.2019, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 9.Jan.2019, 02:00 PM) *
It is sometimes very hard to have faith. If you believe in God as I do, sometimes it helps to remember that religion is man's attempt to explain something beyond his understanding.


Yeah, nah! I am with Einstein on this one.

Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” [3 January 1954]

Posted by: Uncle Fred 12.Jan.2019, 02:43 PM

One more, don't you just love Islam.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-46846286/actress-rania-youssef-facing-jail-term-over-revealing-dress

Posted by: Bsmith 12.Jan.2019, 03:57 PM

QUOTE (BlackfDes @ 9.Jan.2019, 04:38 PM) *
Yeah, nah! I am with Einstein on this one.

Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” [3 January 1954]


I remember reading somewhere that Einstein, in his later years, came to be a believer of God. Also I think that the Bible is more than just a collection of stories. It is a blueprint for a successful society. The basic framework for most Western law come from the 10 commandments. 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.

Posted by: BlackfDes 12.Jan.2019, 06:50 PM

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. Also I think that the Bible is more than just a collection of stories. It is a blueprint for a successful society. The basic framework for most Western law come from the 10 commandments. 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.


He was agnostic. But you would have to ask him yourself if he was agnostic all his life when you get to Heaven [;-)], or do extensive research to be really sure. I read somewhere that he had a very short period of religious fervour [Judaism] when he was quite young, but then discovered science and became agnostic.

Posted by: Bsmith 12.Jan.2019, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (BlackfDes @ 12.Jan.2019, 06:50 PM) *
He was agnostic. But you would have to ask him yourself if he was agnostic all his life when you get to Heaven [;-)], or do extensive research to be really sure. I read somewhere that he had a very short period of religious fervour [Judaism] when he was quite young, but then discovered science and became agnostic.



You could be right. I will do some research and see if I can find the source of his religious convictions.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 12.Jan.2019, 09:40 PM

Religions, their adherents, practices/rights and customs have always been to me a bit ambiguous and hard to understand...

I have always felt a bit sad when I think of young Egyptian boys growing up with the stigma and historical knowledge that their daddies were mummies too...

Posted by: Bsmith 13.Jan.2019, 10:15 AM

rim shot

Posted by: Jamtjim 13.Jan.2019, 01:48 PM

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!


Posted by: Bsmith 13.Jan.2019, 02:02 PM

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 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.



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!




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.

Posted by: Saywhatwhat 13.Jan.2019, 02:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Saywhatwhat 13.Jan.2019, 02:32 PM

huh.gif

 
 

Posted by: Jamtjim 13.Jan.2019, 03:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 13.Jan.2019, 05:39 PM

Welcome home!!!

Posted by: Jamtjim 13.Jan.2019, 05:54 PM

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!

Posted by: Bsmith 13.Jan.2019, 06:05 PM

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



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?

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 13.Jan.2019, 06:16 PM

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???

Posted by: Jamtjim 13.Jan.2019, 06:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 13.Jan.2019, 06:56 PM

The problem with religion is that it is too political!!!

Posted by: Saywhatwhat 13.Jan.2019, 08:41 PM

Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin and Judaism is the thumb that flipped it.

Posted by: Bsmith 13.Jan.2019, 09:22 PM

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 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.



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.

Posted by: Jamtjim 13.Jan.2019, 10:26 PM

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 time and has been abridged by different authorities. Also, the Bible is somewhat cryptic and subject to individual interpretation.


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!

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 14.Jan.2019, 12:52 AM

I would include the words futures management investing...

A lot of people have paid their(tithe)way into heaven, the money however stays here...

Posted by: Bsmith 14.Jan.2019, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Jamtjim @ 13.Jan.2019, 10:26 PM) *
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!




Again, each person is entitled to their own beliefs. Not everyone is attentive to God's word...especially in secular Sweden. Zechariah 7:11:"But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing."

I, of course, believe differently than you, Jamtjim. I believe that God is perfect and the source of all good and that Jesus Christ was and is his emissary to the world.

The problem with religious debates is that neither side's case can be proven or dis-proven. Lee Strobel wrote an interesting book, "The Case for Christ", in which he uses his journalistic prowess to "prove" the existence and omnipotence of Christ. He makes some very compelling arguments but the "case" can never really be proven. It will always fall to a matter of faith.

It is good to read you again on this forum, Jamtjim. You are a thoughtful and reasonable person, and a good writer. I hope you keep posting from time to time.

Posted by: intrepidfox 14.Jan.2019, 03:44 PM

Jamtjim

Welcome back.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 14.Jan.2019, 07:41 PM

About the Bible:

I have always been interested in its origin which I believe to be a compilation of folklore tales cataloged and written down at some time and then translated, interpreted, changed, etc by many different peoples over a long time frame and have wondered what the world would be like today if an original manuscript written in it's original language had been used to create what we accept today as the "Gospel"...

As we all know languages and their meanings/interpretations change over time and I recently posted an old adage that England and America are two countries separated by a common language...

We rap to a chick and the Brits chat up a bird...Interpret those sentences using a language based on ancient Latin as spoken in a Provence far away from Rome by people using only the textbook interpretations and local slang/usages!!!

I'll bet somebody will add an egg to that mixture!!! laugh.gif

Posted by: Jamtjim 14.Jan.2019, 08:23 PM

Thanks for the kind words Bsmith and the welcome intrepidfox.

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 01:39 PM) *
Again, each person is entitled to their own beliefs. Not everyone is attentive to God's word...especially in secular Sweden. Zechariah 7:11:"But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing."


As I mentioned previously, thanks to the secular society that we have the great fortune to live in we are indeed (and quite rightly) entitled to our own beliefs. History tells us what happens under the rule of authoritarian theocracies and we need look no further than other parts of the world to see the same lack of freedoms today. This freedom of belief does not mean however that all beliefs are of equal validity or justification. David Ike believes for example that Tony Blair is a reptilian shapeshifter from another planet he does this despite the lack of evidence for his position and in spite of plenty of evidence countering it. Whilst it might be that not everyone is attentive to God's word, in order to justify this assertion, one would first have to demonstrate that there exists a God and then that the word is his. Without such a justification then the assertion is no different than asserting that not everyone is attentive to the word of David Ike's reptilian overlords.

Please rest assured that I am not trying to be offensive here it is just that the two statements are procedurally identical. Without adequate justification, the claim of God's word is logically no more persuasive than that of David Ike's reptilian's.

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 01:39 PM) *
I, of course, believe differently than you, Jamtjim. I believe that God is perfect and the source of all good and that Jesus Christ was and is his emissary to the world.


Well, I guess my question would be what reason do you have to think that this God actually exists? How have you arrived at the conclusion he is perfect and the source of all good (being the creator of everything surely he is ultimately also the creator of all evil)? And what justification have you for thinking that JC was his emissary?

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 01:39 PM) *
The problem with religious debates is that neither side's case can be proven or dis-proven. Lee Strobel wrote an interesting book, "The Case for Christ", in which he uses his journalistic prowess to "prove" the existence and omnipotence of Christ. He makes some very compelling arguments but the "case" can never really be proven. It will always fall to a matter of faith.


This is not strictly true I am afraid. Depending on what claims are being made for any chosen god, then they absolutely can be at least disproven. Indeed the concept of omnipotence (at least in the classical description of being able to do literally anything ... or alternatively that there is literally nothing that he/she could not do)is a very good example as it is a rather trivial exercise to show this a logical impossibility, and a claim for a God with this property is by definition also impossible. Check out the "Omnipotence Paradox" if you are unsure why this is the case.

On a side note, today's more sophisticated theologians are wont to redefine the term omnipotence in order to still claim it for their God This often results in little more than a circular tautology ("God can do all that is in his nature" or the even more asinine "God can do everything that he can do"). No matter, any limitation to his power is by definition something he/she cannot do. However, this is certainly not what I was taught growing up in mainstream Christianity. Indeed that God cannot possibly exist due to the logically impossible omnipotence it was claimed he possessed.

If one's goal is to believe things that are true (an avoid believing in things that are not), then the time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated to be true rather than not been demonstrated to be false. This is not preaching or asserting a moral viewpoint, it is a statement of reason. I, for example, cannot prove that there are not invisible fairies living at the end of my garden. This doesn't mean that I am in any way justified in believing that there are and to do so would be ludicrous. And whilst it is not strictly true that one cannot prove a negative, not being able to prove provides absolutely no justification for the positive.

Finally, I would point out that faith is an incredibly unsound basis for belief. "Faith" is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have any evidence. If you have evidence, then you don't need faith. The problem is that without evidence then one has no means of decerning whether a claim is true or not thus rendering true and false claims indistinguishable from each other... one literally has no way of telling between the two. Let me put it another way, is there anything that one could not believe on faith? On faith one is equally able to believe false things as one is true ones. It is not a pathway to the truth it is a barrier to it. This is why we don't, for example, allow Airbus to build their aircraft "on faith", we ask for stringent checks to provide evidence of safety. You wouldn't get on a new A380 if you knew that the aircraft had been build on faith as you wouldn't want to find yourself spread like jam over a local field, yet faith is the reason given for what is potentially the most important decision of our lives if the claims of religion are to be believed.

Posted by: Jamtjim 14.Jan.2019, 08:31 PM

QUOTE (Gamla Hälsingebock @ 14.Jan.2019, 07:41 PM) *
About the Bible:

I have always been interested in its origin which I believe to be a compilation of folklore tales cataloged and written down at some time and then translated, interpreted, changed, etc by many different peoples over a long time frame and have wondered what the world would be like today if an original manuscript written in it's original language had been used to create what we accept today as the "Gospel"...


I also have been fascinated by the Bible and indeed have read it in its entirety (well perhaps skipping some of the begats) several times over the years. In fact, it is quite true to say that reading the Bible and being appalled by its contents (in both Testaments) set me on the path to renounce the faith of my childhood and to my eventual atheism.

Posted by: Bsmith 14.Jan.2019, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (Jamtjim @ 14.Jan.2019, 07:23 PM) *
Well, I guess my question would be what reason do you have to think that this God actually exists? How have you arrived at the conclusion he is perfect and the source of all good (being the creator of everything surely he is ultimately also the creator of all evil)? And what justification have you for thinking that JC was his emissary?


When entering into such discussions (especially on the internet) one often runs into non-believers whom dismiss believers as fools that believe in myths, fairy stories and the invisible spaghetti monster. Of course, there are those believers who adopt a smug, righteous, "I'm going to heaven and you're not" attitude as a defense. Neither positions are helpful.

As a practicing (keyword "practicing" as it is a work in progress) Christian, I still admit it is a difficult stretch to believe in God. How can a person believe in something that he cannot see, smell, hear or taste? Of course, I can say that I see God in the beauty of nature and the interconnectedness of all things. I can hear God in a beautiful song or the call of a bird, but these things are subjective, I realize. George Carlin did a very humorous bit on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE.

Still, you ask why I believe and the answer is that I have seen the work of His hand is my life. Of course, some would dismiss these personal occurrences as mere coincidence, but to me they are evidence of God guiding my life.

I have also read the Bible through, skipping through the same passage you did, no doubt. I did not have the same reaction as you, however. I don't know why God's word resonates with some and not others.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 14.Jan.2019, 09:48 PM

The beliefs of "Pagans" are better suited to the understanding of religion and why it exists, nobody can deny the beauty of Mother Nature's gifts to us because we can see, hear, smell and feel them...

Maybe a better question would be why we "invented" God and why do we need to have one instead of many now???

Didn't the Pagans, when first made aware of the one God theory/idea say "there is too much work for one God" and doesn't that support Carlin's explanation of why he made the mountains different sizes??? laugh.gif

Is religion the reason for God, or is God the reason for religion???

Posted by: yet another brit 14.Jan.2019, 09:48 PM

sometimes it helps to remember that religion is man's attempt to explain cope with something beyond his understanding the inevitability of death.

Posted by: Jamtjim 14.Jan.2019, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 09:31 PM) *
Of course, I can say that I see God in the beauty of nature and the interconnectedness of all things. I can hear God in a beautiful song or the call of a bird, but these things are subjective, I realize.


Yes, this is known as "arguemtum ad formam" or more colloquially as the "look at the trees argument" and is a pretty poor justification. Firstly it is as you say subjective; the perception of beauty is a psychological phenomenon and there are far better explanations for it than the work of an unproven supernatural entity. Evolutionary theory provides one such far more reasonable explanation in that we as human beings have evolved to find beauty in our surroundings rather than the idea that the surroundings have been created with beauty inherent in it. It also demonstrates selection bias by focusing on the beautiful while ignoring things like tapeworms and other frankly horrible things found throughout nature.

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 09:31 PM) *
Still, you ask why I believe and the answer is that I have seen the work of His hand is my life. Of course, some would dismiss these personal occurrences as mere coincidence, but to me they are evidence of God guiding my life.


I understand that, but how are you able to differentiate between coincidence which one can demonstrate exists and a God which you can't? Surely, in order to reasonably attribute these occurrences to divine intervention, one must first rule out the possibility of coincidence?

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 14.Jan.2019, 09:31 PM) *
I don't know why God's word resonates with some and not others.


Perhaps because some of us are less ready to accept these writings as the word of God. Furthermore, the God portrayed in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament is a pretty hideous figure outrightly demanding genocide (specifically the murder of children) and the keeping of sex slaves:

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:17-18

Remember that is the same God is the very same one in the New Testament who is claimed to be omnibenevolent. So my question would be why does this kind of thing resonate with anyone with a functioning moral compass?

Now whilst the above verses definitively falsify the claim of omnibenevolence and thus disprove the claim of the Christian God possessing this attribute, it doesn't prove the non-existance of one that doesn't. However who could ever worship such an entity? Imagine that such an entity's existence was in some way demonstrated, I would then have no option than to become a theist. Yet I still could never, ever worship or revere such a god as I am morally superior to it as are 99.99% of humankind.

Posted by: Gamla Hälsingebock 18.Jan.2019, 04:20 PM

There is a difference in God as depicted in the new an old testaments..

The old testament God is believed out of fear and awe of him...

The new testament God is believed out of love and the promise of an afterlife...

Sort of like "good cop, bad cop"...

But supposedly he is the same god, so why the difference???

Maybe to create a new political "power base" in competition with the old one???

And then along comes a new religion!!!

To compete with the old ones in a three way competition for souls, or what???

Or another political reason to unite a certain group of people...

The best part is they all say they believe in god but spend a lot of effort killing each other in his name...

I wonder why???

It seems the idea of god does not work!!!

Posted by: mikkelkasper 1.Mar.2019, 09:25 AM

I came across a story of a young Islamic girl being killed In Kenya Africa..The Aunt was responsible here...was using her as a sex slave..what is our world turning into if the community can have knowledge of this and do nothing.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)