Warning! Controversial Thread: " Artist defiantly draws Prophet Mohammed"

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

This thread gives me deja vu

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Hmmmmmmmm........ This is an interesting thread because it's highlighted to me some of those members who are quite religious and we spend most of our time chatting about IT, so it's an interesting insight.

The one thing I’ve noticed is that there are 3 or 4 people who have got quite, ummm shall I say defensive at someone's comment who basically disagrees with religion as a whole. I know we're trying to keep this a "discussion" but from one persons disagreement about religion (whether people think it is flawed or not) we've got several people now standing up and defending their religion.

I guess this is where my problem lies. I'm not terribly religious and if people who are can live a peaceful life and "live and let live" then that is great, but what I’ve read over the last few pages is the religious people start to get more and more vocal after someone questions their belief.

So if someone says that all religions could live together peacefully, I don’t think it's true. Everyone has their beliefs and in some sense of the way tries to convert other people to their way of thinking..... there is always an argument for their particular religion.... you can see how wars start.... we here have no power (we're not country leaders for example) but after one or two comments questioning religion the temperature has gone right up and people are getting very defensive.

Kinda proves to me that different religions will always have trouble co-existing AND debating their religions as it tends to end up in a “mine is better than yours”. Sure you can accept you neighbour is religion X…. but secretly you know he’s wrong and you’re right…

As for my own opinion… and I know jack crap about religion as a whole… but I think it applied more in the past 2000 years as a mechanism of social control than it does now. (With more and more scientific understanding of the world) Sure living a religious life, being part of a community and living a good caring life is great…. But there will always be people who use religion as an excuse.

So would no religion equal a better world? Probably not…. We’d just end up replacing one problem with another I expect.

One last question for this debate:

If you are raised as a Christian or Muslim or whatever and all you have ever known is church on Sunday, religious community, bible readings…. Being told in church (or at home) that God is this person, this is our religion…. Then you are going to grow up believing that is right.

Now if a child is raised in a white, black hating, gay hating family or community, they are going to “believe” that being black is wrong and being gat is wrong.

So is this that they “believe” their faith (what they have been taught throughout their lives) is true or that it is simply all they have ever known??

Would things work better if people could make a choice when they turn 16 for example after studying many different religions? I suppose all I am getting at is is a belief (when discussing raising children around religion) an actual belief held by the child or young adult from their own decision or something they believe in because it is all they have ever known. In the former case they are going to defend this “belief” yet maybe not really know much about other beliefs…. And generally end up believing theirs is the right way?

For example someone who chooses to follow a particular religion in later life does so by choice, but maybe children dont have this choice? (Just trying to steer this debate in a different direction!)

Anyway I’m confused now! Lol…

 

Not insulted at all mate, I don't say people are brainwashed by religions, I say the people who lead those religions are corrupt.

Now I don't have a problem with you Freddy in being (I take it you are) Christian nor have I problem with one of my mates being a msulim, Yousuf is a devout Muslim but he would not kill or mame because we would not be friends

But Yousuf understand that I believe that all religions were created by corrupt individuals on very basic stories that grew into folk lore and have seemed to stick.

But I also understand that Yousuf believes in the phrophet mohammed etc.

I went to sunday school, taught by my foster parents that god is good etc (but not in OTT sense) but I left or rather I was thrown out of sunday school for saying that I thought the stories they were teaching were a bunch of BS.

Like I said I have no problems with people believing in some religion.

Lets say we agree to disagree.

 

That is why I say, let people choose.

If your parents tell you something when your growing up, you are gonna believe them.

For example: Mother: hey mattwest god is real, Jesus got crucified and some bloke called jona got eaten by a whale but lived in its tummy untill it puked him up 200 miles away in Jeruselem, it was a miracle.

mattwest: Ok mummy I believe everything you say, (without factual evidence apart from some book that got written by some bloke, not Jesus)

Sorry to use you mattwest, when I make a million dollars I'll give you a fiver

But like I say to anyone you believe what you like, and I will believe it mine I am not gonna kill you because of it.

 

No. Ok, when you are a child, you have no choice but to go where your parents take you, which includes church, synagogue, mosque. At some point however, the child gets old enough to start questioning on their own. Some children negotiate their own relationship with the Creator and continue while others leave the faith when they are old enough. My children each have made independent decisions about their faith (some which I disagree with) but it isn't something that I as a father can force on them...particularly since their ages range from 19-21. As a father and a believer, I pray that they all will one day develop a closer relationship to the Almighty and realize who they are in Him.

I just need to make sure I'm understanding this, GBL. You are saying that all leaders of all religions, no matter at what level, are corrupt (and I still need to hear how you define "corrupt" in this context). Correct? While I agree, there are some religious leaders who have abused their positions (Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker come to mind), I believe they are the minority and that most people who are in a position of authority in their faith community try to do the best they can to fulfill their responsibilities to the people they are accountable to (and to the G-d they are accountable to).

That said, I'm a member of the leadership committee for my small congregation. I'm responsible for most of the teaching, providing the structure of worship services, and creating our adult educational material. While I will say that I'm not perfect in this role and continue to try to grow in my position of servanthood (Jesus taught that leaders are servants), I don't believe that I'm "corrupt" and purposely taking advantage of the members of our community. I don't get paid. There are no perks, and all of the work I do for the congregation is on my own time.

The only reason I say all this is to cause people to rethink the idea that religious leaders are automatically corrupt (again, whatever that means), based on some sort of stereotype or misconception.

I'll say again, that as interesting as some of these comments have become, this line of conversation is completely off topic from the original thread.

 

GBL, would you perhaps agree that your feelings towards religions are more towards the 'Organised' forms of religion (ie the churches, etc), rather than the belief system itself?

 

GBL,

Did it ever cross your mind that the lady that told you that was:

A. Dead wrong.
B. Completely against any orthodox Christian belief
C. Had a serious emotional problem as her statement is completely out of line to some little kid coming to her door trick-or-treating.

And, that you are generalizing from a single statement made from one person to millions of other people, and saying because one person you have always assumed to be someone who knew all about Christianity said that all the rest of Christianity thinks and acts the same way this woman did?

As to your statements about sex before marriage.... Are there any negative consequences to sex before marriage? Let's see:

1. Unwanted pregnancy. You don't see any negatives to that?

2. Have you known many young girls who have had an abortion? Many of them suffer serious emotional pain from having killed that little life within them. My stepdaughter is one of them. She's still punishing herself for having an abortion. Nothing anyone can say or do will get her to forgive herself either. She's had 6 more children by the same abusive man that coerced her into having an abortion, and she is now putting all 6 of those kids through hell because of her emotional state from that one act.

3. Do you think the vast majority of single mothers and fathers have an easy life raising child by themselves? Do you think many of them regret having to give up their dreams of an education, travel, or other dreams because they had a child to take care of? How many of them take that frustration out their child? We know at least a significant percentage of them do.

4. The children of single parents are far more likely to commit suicide. Their suicide rate pretty much dwarfs the rate of kids from two parent homes, and that rate is way too high.

5. Does a child who has only a mother or a father get the benefit of having both male and female roles modeled for them in their home? Does nurture play a part in personal development? I know of very people who say no.

6. Does a child raised in the poverty of a single parent household have the same economic advantages that most children with two parents have? Does that have a lasting effect on many/most of them?

I don't know about you, but I see a lot of possible negative consequences to sex before marriage. These things are not only possible, they happen every day. So, nothing wrong with sex before marriage? Hardly.

It's as I said earlier on this thread. God doesn't arbitrarily say sin is bad. It's bad because it has negative consequences. Second, the consequences of sin are mostly natural consequences, the laws of cause and effect. The picture of God getting mad over things is a false picture of God. He's a God of love, not of anger. Take a good look around you. Do you see the world as a place in which only good happens? Or, do you see a world full of pain, heartache, sorrow, people who hurt other people, etc....? What you see are the consequences of a world full of sin, not punishments from an angry God who loves to see sinners full of pain and anguish.

It may surprise you to learn that you have rejected a picture of God and Christianity that I would reject also, if I knew that to be the truth about both of them. I think that you should reject both the Christianity and the Christian God as you presently believe them to be. The way you assume them to be is something that should be rejected. I do think you ought to at least do some honest research to find out of if what you think is true really is true, and not just assumptions that you grew up with.

 

when I say leaders, I mean the people at the top and the people who created those religions.

As I believe those people created their religions to their own end.

I don't know if anyone has seen Monty Pythons Life of Brian but I am inclined to thin thats more truthful than what I have read in the bible.

i.e some bloke says a few things that give people hope, they follow him, he gets murdered by the ruling empire for giving people hope, someone picks up up on the idea and exaggerates it big style.

 

I *love* Monty Python's the Life of Brian, though not as much as the "Holy Grail" film (great movie with a very disappointing ending).

Systems of religions can certainly be man-made (I'd name a few that I think are, but I'd probably end up offending someone). That said, since I believe in the G-d of the Bible, I don't think of my faith as created by a person, rather I believe that the Word of G-d was given as the Almighty's preferred lifestyle for His redeemed community. I suppose in that sense, I'd have to say that my "religion" was created by the Creator of the Universe. We don't have a "Pope" or other centralized individual who calls the shots for my faith community and as a member of the leadership, I'm directly responsible to the other members of the committee, to the congregation as a whole, and to the Creator for my behavior.

I know in this circumstance, our beliefs and opinions are light years apart, but I would ask that you please not automatically assume that my faith is corrupt/flawed/whatever based on your perceptions and experiences. After all, you don't have my perceptions and experiences to draw on in order to understand what I consider the core of my life.

 

Just to clarrify Trip

When I mean corrupt I mean they are in it for their own ends, some for gaining stature in the community, some for being able to have influence over others, and some to abuse their position in terms of sexual or bullying way.
Some to make money.

Most people in the churches I have met are really nice, although some a little naive. But then again I have never met the pope he is probably the(and what I want to say here I won't as I wouldnt want cf to get in trouble).

 

Me too, I also prefer Holy Grail to Life of Brian.

Have you ever seen the version where right at the end Arthur (Graham Chapman) talks to an old knight in a cave.

I ask that because it was the 1st one I ever saw, but it doesn't seem to exist now.

 

If I did, it was probably when the film was first released in the theatres. I don't recall, though.

 

yep, it must have been the theatre version. I emember it as clear as day, just after they cross the bridge of doom, Arthur goes into a cave when he meets a Knight (Terry Gilliam) who shows Arthur the holy grail, this is before Arthur goes to find Lancelot and gets arrested by the police.

 

This isn't true. I grew up being taught religion. Christianity in particular. I left it completely for decades. I went back to it when I realized that what had been modeled to me, and taught to me, was the not really what Christianity is.

To a certain extent this is so, but everyone who has enough mental capacity comes to a point in their life where they understand the difference between right and wrong, and at that point they can make choice as to what the choose to believe, and how they choose to act.

I grew up in some fairly cloistered communities, and I can say that everyone I knew thought for, and decided for, themselves on issues of religion and morality. No one that I ever knew made their all their choices only because their parents said, you have to think this way. Why would people even assume this? I don't understand where it comes from, as I've never seen it in real life.

To this I have to ask, can you live in today's world and not constantly see and hear lines of thought that completely disagree with Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc... principles and ideas? Why should children be totally isolated from even hearing about God? That is really what you're proposing, because the only influence most kids have towards God in their lives, (and I mean the ones who do grow up in a religious home) comes from their parents, but from the vast majority of the world their parents beliefs are rejected. Do you really think none of these kids watch TV, go to public school, etc.... Do you really assume they live in a vacuum?

Once again, I ask why you make this assumption? Haven't you ever heard of PK's(Preacher's Kids)? They are usually the rowdiest, most rebellious, the most questioning of authority of the lot when they are in their teenage years. If they were raised in such a vacuum that they were being brainwashed into believing in God because no ideas other than their parent's ideas ever penetrated their life or consciousness, wouldn't their behavior be just the opposite? Wouldn't PK's be the biggest doormats, the least rebellious, and question their parent's beliefs the least of all kids raised in religious homes?

 

Religions don't restrict freedom... you choose to believe and follow what God commands, or you choose not to believe and follow what God commands. So you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want... you are free to choose what you want to do. But with every choice comes consequences. If you believe there is no God, then you can choose to do what you will, because you believe there will be no consequences other than what you bring upon yourself.

God states what he does and does not want us to do. If you choose to disobey that, regarding sex or whatever, then that's between you and God... and if you don't believe God exists, then there's no problem, is there?

If you mean, "And there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage unless you choose follow God's commands," then yes, I guess you're right. Hey, man, they're not my rules... if you don't like them, take them up with the Boss.

I'm not sure what your problem is with Christianity and Satan. Christianity acknowledges that Satan exists... so are you saying you have a problem with "Christians" who say they don't believe in Satan, or are you saying that you believe Satan doesn't exist, or what?

Nobody controls my religion. My religion is composed solely of my relationship with Jesus Christ. That's it. What corrupt person can control that? Nobody.

 

So who do you believe is "at the top" of my "religion"?

 

I agree with an earlier poster, that trying to argue with people about their belief system is pointless except as a way of creating bad feeling and falling out with them. But what has struck me most in this thread, and really surprised me given the posters' occupations, is the degree to which peoples' beliefs make them look through such filtered vision - they see what they want to see, and not what is really there.

At work, we are expected to be sceptical, analytical, and make decisions based on evidence rather than how things are presented to us by somebody else. It feels almost schizophrenic to me that in their respective churches the same people are unquestioning, irrational (if not actively anti-rational) and seem to make a concerted evidence not to look at the evidence except where it fits in with their preconceived ideas.

The Koran is full of contradictions between a peaceful loving god, and a violent vengeful one. I work with two muslims who are amongst the sweetest gentlest men I have ever met (they haven't seen my prophet cartoon collection though ;-) ) - I assume they see the former and not the latter, whereas the suicide fanatics see more of the latter.

The Bible is equally contradictory in it's presentation of love and peace, and the most horrendous nastiness from its deity - and I guess the posters here are also thankfully focussing on the former rather than the latter. Worldwide, they are in the majority - but it hasn't always been that way, and it is not true to represent this as 'those who did bad things in the past were bad people who weren't following their religion's teachings.'

Justification for cruelty and mass slaughter can be found in both 'holy' books, and it is disingenuous to represent it otherwise. I still find it a very interesting puzzle, as to why at this moment in history one religion is more warlike and one more peaceable than the other. I'm not saying I know the answer, it's just that I agree with the original posting, that it is a really fascinating question.

(Oh, and although it still belongs in another thread: no evolutionary scientist EVER said that evolution was the result of blind chance.)

 

Actually, there isn't a contradiction in fact, though a casual eye might see it as such. In Jewish thought, the Almighty has 13 basic "attributes" and principle among them are the attributes of Justice and Mercy. From a Biblical standpoint (and I realize that from a secular point of view, none of what I'm about to say will make sense), since G-d is the author of all creation including what is right and what is wrong, He is the final arbiter of justice. That is, whatever moral decision the Almighty makes is correct and in fact, perfectly correct. From a human standpoint, we might disagree, especially since we as imperfect beings, can never measure up to perfect morality. Fortunately for us, the Almighty also has the attribute of mercy. Part of the traditional Jewish liturgy states of the Almighty "...slow to anger, abundant in kindness, often forgiving of sin to the third and fourth generations" (I'm writing this from memory so the quote may not be precise, but close enough). The idea is that even though G-d's justice is perfect, He often demonstrates His mercy instead, showing kindness in the face of human defiance to His will.

I haven't studied the Koran but I've studied the Bible in a fair amount of detail. I know of those times when the Almighty commanded the Children of Israel to extinguish an entire people, sparing no one, not even the infants. I remember sitting in a Reform Jewish synagogue and listening to the discussion between the Rabbi and the congregation, wrestling with the Almighty's judgment in these events. The Reform movement is the most liberal in Judaism and the Rabbi said he was not comfortable with this sort of judgment either, and was willing to "wrestle" with the Almighty on the subject of his absolute judgment...especially in the case of small children who he didn't believe could be held accountable for the crimes of their people. Another gentleman in the congregation who held a more conservative point of view said that while we don't always understand G-d's judgments and that they may seem harsh or even completely unreasonable, He is G-d and to accept Him is to accept that His judgments are perfect...and that ours aren't.

The more I study the Bible, the more I come to realize that it is a very internally consistent document. The thing is, you really have to study it...not just on the surface, but in terms of the context, who the authors were (yes, the Almighty is the ultimate author but He selected specific people to write certain portions and allowed their personalities and styles to be expressed), and the other background elements.

I write a series of theological articles for my congregation's website. One was on the concept of "false prophets" (and we have plenty in the world today). One of the issues that occasionally comes up is why we as believers don't stone false prophets as commanded in the Bible. On the surface, it looks like we should, but only if you take the command out of context and badly apply it. Here's my response:

This is an excellent example of where the Bible can be accused of being "inconsistent" (since after all, false prophets aren't stoned today). Without knowing the background and context of the commandment, it is easily misunderstood and incorrect conclusions are drawn about the Bible as a whole. It takes years of study to even scratch the surface. I continue to wrestle with aspects of the Bible that I don't understand and probably will for the rest of my life. However, for me at least, it's the struggle that brings me to a greater understanding and a closer relationship with the Creator. In Jewish tradition, study is equal to worship (though not the only form of worship) and the study of Torah is a righteous act in and of itself. While I don't consider having any righteousness of my own, I am able to approach the Throne of my Creator by the Righteousness of the Messiah who as John once called him, "G-d's Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world".

 

Yeah, but it the rules in some of them that bug me.

As I said sex before marriage there is nothing wrong with that imo if the child is brought up in a loving environment etc.

 

What I mean Michael is that the people who are in charge, i.e cardinals and bishops etc are the ones who make it seem corrupt to me.

I have no doubt that Jesus was real, its the son of god thing I have trouble with.