This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Are Muslims being demonised?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
ElhonnaDS, my answer is exactly the same to you as I gave above. You can choose to only look at the alleged origins of a religion to determine what they they believe, but I don't see it that way. I don't believe in the Bible or the Qur'an so arguments from either have really no affect on me: any one religion can say believe whatever they want about another religion, but that just gets filed under that religion's beliefs and does not become an objective way of judging. When I look at the descriptions, I see logically contradictory claims, and so I know they cannot be speaking about the same thing if those claims are actual defining aspects of what they believe. All the "we're all really believe the same things" is great as a personal belief, but that's not something that you can objectively judge religions on. Any claim that both (contradictory beings) are the same God automatically assumes that one set of beliefs is wrong, and I'm not willing to make that claim in such an objective manner.
Post by
xaratherus
Let me throw a little fuel on the discussion here:
One of my friends from high school, whom I chat with pretty frequently, is going to a Mennonite college for his theology degree.
He is of the mind that not only are Muslims being demonized, but that the entire concept of justifying a "war on terror" is so contradictory to the basic tenets of Christianity that said combat is more indicative of the decline of Christianity in the United States than any other hot topic (legalized abortion, legalized gay marriage, the death penalty, etc.).
Thoughts?
Post by
Jubilee
What then is the proper Christian response to innocent lives being taken? Just let it happen and turn the other cheek?
Post by
xaratherus
What then is the proper Christian response to innocent lives being taken? Just let it happen and turn the other cheek?
By his argument? Yes. Mennonites believe in non-violence against all higher creatures (i.e., humans), regardless of circumstance. JB (I'll refrain from using his full name, since I haven't mentioned to him that I was bringing this up here) is not a Mennonite himself, but an advocate of complete non-violence.
On the whole, the New Testament seems to have that as a theme. I'm not aware of any passage in the New Testament where Christ advocates violence as a response in
any
circumstance. And since the common thought is that the law of the New Testament and the covenant of Christ supplanted the Old Testament law for Christians, that means a violent response would be out of line for a country populated primarily by Christians.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
I vaguely remember a verse, probably out of context, but one where Jesus tells his followers to buy swords before they leave.
Post by
xaratherus
DoctorLore: True, but did he carry through with it? There's a world of difference between a threat of violence and actually causing harm - or death - to another.
I vaguely remember a verse, probably out of context, but one where Jesus tells his followers to buy swords before they leave.
Luke 22:35-38. He does tell his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. However, later in the same passage one of his disciples draws the sword and Jesus rebukes him for it, and actually tells him that if he draws his sword he is destined to die by it (Luke 22:51).
If anything, that seems to reinforce the idea that a
threat
of violence in response is okay, but actually responding with violence would not be covered.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Jubilee
So...basically...your argument is that what people believe isn't a good indicator of...what they believe? That they might think that they believe something, and write books about why the believe it, but in the end they don't actually know what they believe? That an outside observer, who has never actually read the Quran, has a better grasp on what they believe than they themselves do, and because it doesn't make sense to an un-informed casual glance, it must not be true?
Let me give you a different example of what you're saying. Lets say there was a great author. A group of scholars look at the body of his work, and think that his general attitude was one of derision about human nature, and that he was cynical. However, later on a new group of works that are believed to be penned by this author under a pen name later in life, show that he had a satirical sense of humor, and his actual opinion about people seems to be much more favorable than his early works would indicate.
Now lets say that the scholars split into two groups. One group holds true to the idea that this author was a pessimist and a cynic, and refuse to believe that these new works were actually penned by him. They continue to teach that he had a very dark outlook on humanity. A second group embraces these new works as shedding light on his old material, and as such their opinion on him is different. They teach that he was someone with a sharp wit and a sense of humor, who wrote some dark pieces to illustrate points but overall was optomistic about the future of humanity.
Based on the above scenario, are they suddenly talking about two different people, because their opinions about him have changed so drastically? Even though they both agree on the first body of works, and that they are talking about the same person, with the same history.
Post by
xaratherus
Based on the above scenario, are they suddenly talking about two different people, because their opinions about him have changed so drastically?
There's a flaw in the analogy though. The way you've written it, it could be assumed that a person who was not a fan of that particular author would have some way to confirm that the author existed, and indeed was one person.
But that's not the situation here. We have the
fans
telling us that the author existed, and no way to verify that. As a non-fan of the work, I would have to question the possibility that the earlier body was written by someone, and then the latter body was written by someone else, "ghosting" as the original author.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Based on the above scenario, are they suddenly talking about two different people, because their opinions about him have changed so drastically?
There's a flaw in the analogy though. The way you've written it, it could be assumed that a person who was not a fan of that particular author would have some way to confirm that the author existed, and indeed was one person.
But that's not the situation here. We have the
fans
telling us that the author existed, and no way to verify that. As a non-fan of the work, I would have to question the possibility that the earlier body was written by someone, and then the latter body was written by someone else, "ghosting" as the original author.
True- but we're not evaluating whether or not God exists. We're evaluating whether or not the fans believe the author exists. If they tell us they do believe it, they write books on why they believe it, and what they believe about him, who are we to tell them that they don't actually believe what they think they believe?
Religion is nothing but formalized belief about how the universe works. It makes no sense to say that a thing that is comprised of nothing but a belief in a set of ideas can't prove that they believe what they believe, just because they believe it. It's circular logic. If something can't be a duck, just because it's a duck, then how does something become a duck?
Post by
Jubilee
The problem with your post is that it relies on the predetermined assumption that there is one guy. If you insist on analogies, then it makes much more sense this way.
You have three different books, A and B and C, all anonymously written. One group of scholars really reads book B and concludes that it was written by the same guy who wrote A and makes a bunch of claims about him (it was a man, he stuttered, and he was gay). Another group of scholars really reads book C and concludes that it was written by the same author as A, but comes two different conclusions about the author (woman, was in her 80s when she wrote, was straight).
Can you objectively say that B and C were written by the same person? The evidence, assuming you give the verdicts of both groups of scholars equal weight, show a complete contradiction. Both might look to A as a factor in their judgment of their own particular book, but just because they both point at A does not tell us whether there are one, two, or even three different authors.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The problem with your post is that it relies on the predetermined assumption that there is one guy. If you insist on analogies, then it makes much more sense this way.
You have three different books, A and B and C, all anonymously written. One group of scholars really reads book B and concludes that it was written by the same guy who wrote A and makes a bunch of claims about him (it was a man, he stuttered, and he was gay). Another group of scholars really reads book C and concludes that it was written by the same author as A, but comes two different conclusions about the author (woman, was in her 80s when she wrote, was straight).
Can you objectively say that B and C were written by the same person? The evidence, assuming you give the verdicts of both groups of scholars equal weight, show a complete contradiction. Both might look to A as a factor in their judgment of their own particular book, but just because they both point at A does not tell us whether there are one, two, or even three different authors.
The problem with your analogy, is that you're debating fact rather than belief. What you said was that they can't BELIEVE in the same God. What I'm saying is that belief operates independant of logic or fact. You can't tell another person what they do and don't believe. There are people who, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that the Earth is flat. You can argue about whether or not it actually is, but you can't tell the person that they don't actually believe that when they do. You can tell a delusional person who sees ghosts in the hall that what he is seeing is not real, and you'd be right, but you can't honestly tell him he doesn't believe it when he does. A belief is an idea. You can't dictate to someone that they're not thinking what they think that they're thinking.
Post by
xaratherus
If they tell us they do believe it, they write books on why they believe it, and what they believe about him, who are we to tell them that they don't actually believe what they think they believe?
...well, I'm me. And I do point out contradictions in religious beliefs fairly frequently. Something being a belief doesn't remove it from the realm of pointing at it and going, "No, that doesn't make sense."
From the outside there seem to be insurmountable paradoxes in the descriptions provided of the Abrahamic god by the three primary Abrahamic faiths. To use your analogy, they all say it's a duck, but one describes a duck that sounds like a mallard, one describes a duck that sounds like an eider, and one describes a duck that sounds like a teal. They just can't all be right; they can
believe
it's the same duck all they want, but that doesn't make it the same duck.
Perhaps we should take this to another thread at this point, heh.
Post by
Jubilee
What you said was that they can't BELIEVE in the same God.
Can you point to where you think I said that? I never said (meant to say) anything of the sort. This entire thing started when I responded to the statement "hey don't know that
Muslims worship the same god as Christians do
". That was a statement of fact, which I believe has no real basis. In response to your first post made sure to clarify that it's "great as a personal belief".
People can believe whatever they want, if you've read anything I've ever written in this forum, you would probably see that I believe that to a fault.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Xara
I agree- it doesn't make sense. Which is why I follow no particular faith- I think there are too many contradictions floating around, too much political and social agenda preached with doctrine and too much human opinion mixed in. But I feel like it's a little much to say "Nope- you don't believe that." to someone who very clearly does believe it.
@Jubilee
Ok- I'll conceed that we don't know, for sure, that the prayers that Muslims send up to the God of Abraham don't actually go to some other God. I'll go with that. I thought we were treating worship as the profession of belief, and the ritual of showing respect to what they believe in. I wasn't thinking in terms of there being multiple Gods that people are getting confused about. At the very least can we agree that they believe they are are worshiping the same God, even if in some cosmic sense they have actually been tricked into worshiping a different God?
Post by
Jubilee
As I also said in this right away thread: I can't speak for either religion. I am not going to make assumptions or agree with some conclusion about what they believe. They are perfectly free to explain their own beliefs as they see fit, it's not my place nor do I have the desire to do so for them.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
As I also said in this right away thread: I can't speak for either religion. I am not going to make assumptions or agree with some conclusion about what they believe. They are perfectly free to explain their own beliefs as they see fit.
They do...in the Quran...which is kind of the difinitive source of what Muslims believe.
Post by
Jubilee
As I also said in this right away thread: I can't speak for either religion. I am not going to make assumptions or agree with some conclusion about what they believe. They are perfectly free to explain their own beliefs as they see fit.
They do...in the Quran...which is kind of the difinitive source of what Muslims believe.
As are the passages that say infidels should be killed. It's not
my
holy book, so I don't claim to know what the religious implications of any of it means.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.