Jump to content

jefferiah

Member
  • Posts

    2,206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jefferiah

  1. Excellent point. Thanks for making it for me. Kuzadd picked Islam out of a batch of non-Christian religions on which to focus when she said, in effect "If someone were to say the Islamic religion is superior there would be an outrage." This was not true. And the interesting thing is that she picked Islam. Because what she is aware of, is that out of all these antithetical religions which are fully allowed to promote themselves, Islam is the one that atrracts great attention. My reply said in effect that, the promotion of religion, in and of itself, is not what causes the outrage. You are beginning to touch upon the sort of thing that does. I think, it is quite possible to call yourself a Muslim without promoting jihad. I think alot do. The reality is though an astounding number do not. This is what causes the concern.
  2. There is no such rule. People are allowed to promote their own beliefs, religious or secular. You spend a great deal more time creating threads to point the finger at Christianity than any Christian on here does making threads trying to convert anyone.
  3. I have read many of the Nag Hammadi texts myself. They were discovered in 1945, I believe. Many of them are published online and you can read them for free. "The controllers" never told me what to think about them when I read them. I read them myself. I have no doubt in my mind that the Gospels are the original accounts. What may be the case is that these texts they found are older than any known copy of the accepted New Testament texts. The oldest copy of the Illiad dates about 500 years after the original. That does not mean a literary work whose original predates the Illiad copy was actually written before the Illiad. The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to about the 4th century, if I am not mistaken. There is an existing fragment of the gospel of John dated circa 125 AD. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains alot of the New Testament and is dated to about 250 AD. This is not some new idea, Margrace. Every decade or so there is some resurgence in the popularity of these ideas. Same with the ideas put forth in the Da Vinci code. These have been around for ages, but when they are reported on the news they always make it sound as if it were something new. And the sound arguments which refute these ideas have been around just as long. Another thing, Margrace, is that the main points of the religion which could have been said to have given the Catholics control over the people, are ones which I would say are not even to be found in the Bible, but in extra theological documents. Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, etc. Now since these were the most important points of power over the people (if you wish) it would stand to reason that they would have altered the Bible to contain them. They did not have to. The average man could not read the scriptures until the Gutenberg press. It was reserved for religious scholars. Which begs another question? Why on Earth would the "Controllers" of let's say 500 AD bother to fabricate a book in order to control the people, which the people themselves could not even read? That would be pretty useless. Unless of course one Controller said to his mates, "Well, you know fellows, centuries from now there may be a machine which is able to copy texts faster than any scribe and society at large may consume literature faster than they have in any other period of history. So hows about we alter the books before that happens, just in case one of us Controllers is still living 1000 years from now." They didn't have to tweak books that people could not read, Margrace. If at all there are controllers they would keep them for themselves. Remember Brave New World. Mustapha Mond, is referred to by your own word. "Controller". And he is the only one with a copy of Othello.
  4. You are no doubt referring to the apocryphal gospels. It is common knowledge that the Bible had to be copied and recopied in order to survive. At a certain point when they were deciding on the appropriate books to include in the canon certain ones did not make it. If you read them in comparison with the gospels and such, it is easy to see why. The Gospel of Thomas for instance is clearly a gnostic book. Gnostism existed before Christianity and when word of Jesus began to spread in Egypt and such areas they simply turned him into a gnostic Jesus. The style of writing in these texts is perhaps more comparable to a Buddhist sutra, than a Gospel. Or perhaps more comparable to Neitszche's style of writing in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In this book Neitzsche uses a characted named Zarathustra (another name for Zoroaster, which was actually the name of the Prophet who founded Zoroastrianism). Neitszche of course knows nothing about what the actual Zoroaster said but makes a collection of sayings, using free poetic license, and writing in a very poetic style. The gospel of Thomas is similar to this. It does not have the ring of an actual written eyewitness account of something, but of a poem.
  5. Of course I can. You show me one place where I am quoted saying Islam ought to be banned. This is just common sense Kuzadd, that an Islamic website would teach that Islam is the true faith, while a Christian one would say Christianity is the truth, and likewise for Judaism. Tolerance and condoning are two different things.
  6. I disagree with you there, Kengs. I don't see anything offensive about being called white. It is just a term used to designate people with pale skin. Makes sense to me. Let the complainers complain.
  7. 2 plus 2 cannot be 4 and also 5. It is one or the other. So for instance, Islam says that Jesus is only a prophet, and a lesser one in comparison to Mohammed. While Christianity says that Jesus is divine, the Son of God. If one is true the other is not. If a truth is true for one and not for another, then it is not really a truth. You keep saying views are pushed on another. Earlier today I went on some Islamic sites and I saw that in various ones it was said that Islam is the true religion. I also went on an Islamic irc chat and asked what is the true religion? This was after I read Kuzadd's most recent post. The reply that was given at first was "This is" So I said "What is this? What religion?" And the people there told me "Islam." So I said "Does this mean Judaism and Christianity are false religions." And the reply I received was, "Yes, they are false." When someone says something like this it does not feel like anyone is forcing it on me. By simply proselytizing and promoting your belief above another, you are not forcing anyone to believe it. People have a right to do so. In fact, had they never had this right, then there would be no Christianity, Islam or Judaism today. In fact there would be very little communication at all. And people who think that any or all of these respective religions are hokum have a right to disregard those who have a right to proselytize if they do not believe them. When a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door and hands out literature, they are not forcing me to convert. They are giving me literature which explains their position, and why it is the right one. They have a right to do so, and I have the right to either agree or disregard what they say. Very simple. While you may think proselytizing is a small annoyance it is hardly a crime, and a fairly reasonable part of everyday life. Religion aside, let's look at any non-religious viewpoints or idealogies. It is well accepted that what people regard as truth is something that they try to make others see. In fact, this is basically what we all do on Mapleleafweb day in and day out. Political parties promote themselves above other political parties. You proselytize your own views on here, Jennie. We all do. That is not pushing it on somebody. People have a right to agree or disagree with what you say. It's very simple. If your views are only truths for you then that means that there is no substantial value or truth to what you are saying about native issues, except for within your own mind. That means that there is no reason for anyone to come around to your side. And I don't think you argue these points just so that you can hear yourself think. You believe you are objectively right. If not, you would have no reason to post your thoughts here. You wouldn't force your own truths on others, right.
  8. I find it hard to believe that you are really all that disgusted. The iniator of the thread was quite willing to indulge in the new direction the thread was taking and was probably partly responsible for that direction. If this disgusts you I wonder how you are able to function in normal life, where everyday conversations in real time begin with one topic and follow through with a succession of others.
  9. Ah, so since you agree with him, you must believe that the point upon which you both agree is "right" or "the truth". Now, does this mean you think you are superior to others?
  10. And your professor knows this based on......? If he had perhaps used the line from The Catcher in The Rye about coming and seeing some of the things that are done in his name, I might have agreed. He was definitely a Jew. In Judaism there is the promise of a coming Messiah. So in a sense Christianity is a form of Judaism which believes the Messiah has already come.
  11. If the teacher asks a math question to the class---- "What does _ +_ equal?" Five students raise their hands. Each of them has a different answer. Let's say that one student is right. And he gives his answer because he thinks he has the right answer. Does this mean he thinks he is superior to the other students? Should the teacher say that they are all right answers? No one owns God. The debate is not over ownership of God, but the truth about God. There are different positions on the matter which directly contradict each other. Only one of them, if any, can be true. When you and others assert your positions on native issues there seem to be two different standpoints. And they do not gel. If you are right the other one is wrong, vice versa. And I assume that since you argue for your own position on the native issues, you must also think that your position is the right one. I am sure you are not here just to practice your debating skills and that you just pick a side for fun. No, you argue for your own position on the matter because you think it is the right one. Does this mean you think you are superior? Of course not!!
  12. This is where you and I differ. You see it as something to fight over, I don't. If I believe that Jesus is the Messiah then I am not a follower of Judaism, and I am not a Muslim. And there is no way to reconcile myself to those other religions. And the same goes for Judaism and Islam vs Christianity. So if you believe one of them is right, you believe that the others are wrong. Believing that something is wrong does not mean you believe you are a better person or that you must fight with others who do not believe as you do. People can agree to disagree. People do this all the time in everyday life. I am sure you have friends who do not vote the same way as you do. Perhaps you have relatives who are more right-winged than you are.
  13. No, if any of them are right, it can only be one of them since they all pretty much have contradictory points, so to believe in one of them is to believe the others are wrong. Those who believe they have a right answer usually do not keep their mouths shut. There is nothing supremacist about that.
  14. It is ok. And they say it all the time. That, in itself, does not cause any great outrage. "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah (God) never will It be accepted of Him" (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85) "Abraham was not a Jew nor Christian; but an upright Muslim." (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:67)
  15. Of course, and I can also accept the right of someone of any faith to say that his/her faith is better and the true way to people who are not of his/her faith.
  16. I believe that the New Testament was kept in tact well throughout the years. The main reason I believe this is that if it were tampered with by the Roman Church then there would not have been a Reformation. There were no widely published Bibles before the Gutenberg press and even at that scripture was reserved for scholars who were worthy to study it. So for one it did not need to be changed. But the second thing, is that if it were changed one would think it would be changed to clear up the discrepancies between what Roman doctrine said and what Luther and others found that led them to believe Roman doctrine was theologically incorrect.
  17. Possible perhaps, probable---I dont think so. Sour grapes? I dont understand why it would be sour grapes to think that he would not be jealous.
  18. Let's add an ambulance with a patient in critical condition.
  19. Opinions on here really make one think? That's a compliment, you know. Opinions and making people think. Great combo, I'd say. Contrast it with Rabble Babble where the appropriate formulation would be "Opinions on Here Are Bannable Offences".
  20. No I think you missed the point. The person who wins artist of the year in the grammy's for instance is probably really nowhere near the artist some of the film score composers are who win the awards they give out in a seperate ceremony. Not that I am comparing Bush to that composer either. I am just saying--- Awards are just awards. Now you said he is happy to have been nominated. You meant that as a joke, of course. But its an interesting thing to say. Had Bush actually been nominated or had the Nobel Peace Prize been a goal he had aspired to, then I would see there being a possibility of jealousy, but I don't think people just off the wall get jealous over who wins a Nobel Peace Prize. I am not a Bush or Gore fan (I dont know much about either, really)...so no sour grapes from here. It's not a hockey game, so its not like my team lost (which they did tonight). But truthfully Bush does not strike me as the sort who would really care about something like that, anyway.
  21. What they prefer to be called is up to them, sure. What someone else prefers to call them is up to that someone else. Why would you call me an Indian? No I am not Indian, but I would perceive it as an insult if you didn't. It was a word people used for another people. And people always have their own words for other peoples. Germans are actually Deutsche. In the end Indian is just a word. If you want to be upset over it that is up to you. I have no problem using the term native either, but I would not throw the book at someone for slipping up.
  22. The Old Testament is filled with alot of meaning, especially for a Christian. Ask a Messianic Jew, they are better than I am at explaining how everything that happened in the OT is symbolic of Jesus himself, like a foreshadowing. If you are a Christian it is automatic that you believe Islam is false. You cannot reconcile the two. Same with all religions. The most important tenets of Christianity, for instance, are that Christ is divine, that he died for the remission sins, and was resurrected. In Islam Christ is not divine, and was never crucified. To be in agreement with Islam is to edit the most important point of Christianity itself. They do not gel. So if a Jew or a Muslim were to say Christianity is false and wrong, this would only be natural. If you are Jewish and you believe in the coming Messiah, then anyone who claims to be one would be a blasphemer. So technically Christianity is blasphemy according to Judaism.
  23. An insult is something which degrades the quality of one's character. Indian has no degrading meaning. It was simply an issue of mistaken identity which stuck. Which is basically the same thing as someone referring to me as "English". Technically it is wrong. But it is not an insult, it is not intended as an insult, and there is no reason to be upset over it, unless people keep telling you its some sort of insult. You can call me an Indian if you like.
  24. Yep and Che is typically left judging by the popularity of his t-shirts among them. In Christianity there is a belief that in the "future" Christ's followers will be perfected. In her own words she referred to herself as a sinner. So your assertion that she considered herself perfect (while Jews are not) is refuted by the snippet you posted. Whether you agree with this idea or not, it seems perfectly natural to me for a person to promote their own religion over another religion. Much different if she were to start force converting. To be sure, she has had quotes about how we ought to force convert etc etc. But I don't think anyone thinks she is really serious. She also says things like "I dont support social programs, but I would fully support a subsidized course which teaches logic to liberals." But I also don't think she is the type of person who should be speaking at churches perhaps. So there you raise a good point. But you have failed to show that millions and millions of rapture cultists are actively trying to make it happen. You have an "email". Whoop dee doodle. I have spoken to Jews online who have said that Jesus is a false messiah, etc etc. And that is completely natural. All faiths are decidedly very different. Ecumenicalism only applies if you do a pretty thorough editing job on each religion. So if they are all not the same and we all decide that we feel one of them is right, it certainly stands to reason that we feel that others are wrong. A Jewish person cannot say Krishna is Lord. A Christian cannot believe that Christ is Lord and he is also a fake. If you believe one, you have discounted another.
×
×
  • Create New...