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.

First off. This post is not a post created in anger. It's an honest attempt at dialog.

What would be your reaction to me telling you that you must have been brainwashed if you disagree with me? Until that type of thinking was indulged in there was very little serious debate, and more just a friendly exchanging of ideas. Second, what would be your reaction to me saying that you are "anti-rational"? Do not even claim that your remarks were not intended to include me as being anti-rational.

That said, I see only a very people in this thread really willing to discuss anything other than those of us who do accept religion. Johnny, Fergal, and possibly mattwest as I don't know whether he has had a chance to respond, at least made an attempt to see another point of view, the rest of the responses have been pretty much intolerant of any religious point of view. I have always thought rationality had some tolerance for different points of view, and the ability to discuss those differences. The unwillingness to even discusss things is what I find to be "anti-rational".

I'd also say statements such as "I've never read the Koran, but I know what isn't it" are far less than rational. That type of thinking has come from the anti-religion side of the fence, not the pro-religion side of the fence. And, when serious lapses in logical thinking have been pointed out, those responses have been pretty much ignored.

Here again you jump to a conclusion. How do you know what any of us have, or have not, questioned in our lifetimes? This is nothing more than saying, you came to a different conclusion about an extremely complex subject than I did, so you must not even be able to think rationally. Just how is that any kind of rational thinking?

OK. Have you really studied the subject? Does the fact that these two guys you work with have studied the Koran and say they live by it, and are they are not violent at least raise a question in your mind as to your conclusions about what the Koran teaches.

Hmmm.... Have you really studied the Bible in depth? I've spent decades studying my Bible, and I come to completely different conclusion than you do. How do you know it's not true to represent people who did bad things as not following the teachings of the Bible? On what basis do you make this type of statement?

Well, at least you think justification for cruelty and mass slaughter can be found can be found in both. How deeply have you studied either book? Spent a few years at it?

Ummm.... What else can you call random mutations? And, yes this topic does deserve a different thread.

 

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.

The problem with this is that more times than not the children born out of wedlock are not. That's not saying all children born in wedlock are born into a loving environment, but their chances are much better of having that happen to them. So, who is to guarantee that a child born out of wedlock is going to be raised in loving environment? And, is the momentary pleasure of sex worth the possible consequences of spending your life tied to someone whom you may not even like all that well through having to parent a child with them?

 

I think that I mentioned in a previous post that the Bible (and specifically the Torah...first five books of the Bible) are the Almighty's preferred lifestyle for his redeemed community. What that means, IMHO, is that when a person or a community or a people (such as the Children of Israel), agree that the Creator of the Universe is G-d and they know that His ways are better than our ways, they agree to follow Him and allow Him to be the L-rd of their lives. Once the person or community is "saved" by being redeemed from their rebellion, they begin to study what the Almighty's behavioral expectations are. They include things like "don't murder", don't steal", "don't lie, particularly under oath", "don't harbor desires for your neighbor's wife, his house, his car" and so forth.

I doubt that too many people would argue that the above expectations are bad/wrong/unfair (unless you are a murderer, a thief, a liar, or like to plot and scheme about how to get your neighbor's wife into bed). In fact, if you look at major portions of the Torah, you'll see that the Almighty created a "constitution" for the nation of Israel that included penal and civil law as well as ethical and moral behavior. This is the "boring" part of the Bible to a lot of people including a lot of Christians which means they miss the point. Israel was the only nation that was originally ruled under a theocracy; that is, directly ruled by G-d with a prophet or prophets as the spokesmen (actually, spokespeople since Deborah was a Judge and Prophet and Moses' sister Miriam was a Prophet) of His will.

If you read those parts of the Bible, they are not arbitrary or inconsistent. In fact, most of our laws in the west are taken from those established in the Bible including having the accused being brought before a court system, having the right to face your accusers, and having more than one witness verify that a crime occurred.

While the casual eye may see the commandments as just a list of dos and don'ts, they are really no different than a benevolent leader enacting a set of legal and moral codes to protect the population from both internal and external harm. If enacted perfectly, those codes would result in the most just form of society ever in existence on earth, particularly at the time they were written since the societies around Israel were often ruled by a single human king who could pronounce judgments based on whim or mood.

In Genesis, G-d taught that a man and a woman become "one flesh". This doesn't mean they "meld" into each other like some science fiction story, but that they are bonded in a very special way in a committed relationship authored and cherished by their Creator. Things like pre-marital or extra-marital sex as well as pr0n, strip joints, lap dances, and such cheapen that "one flesh" relationship. The part where we say, "As I said sex before marriage there is nothing wrong with that imo if the child is brought up in a loving environment etc" is us saying that we know better than the Almighty who created all things and/or that we would rather have our way than His way.

That's our right. G-d gave us free choice and we're supposed to use it. The idea, is that when we choose G-d rather than having Him use His will to "force" us to choose Him, it's because we love Him and are devoted to His ways. He's like a father who loves us but wants us to love Him without being made to. He creates rules for us just as any father creates rules for their children...not to punish or restrict them, but to protect them from themselves. After all, would you let a five year old cross a busy street by themselves? Heck, no. They could get killed. They might want to be a "big boy" or "big girl" and cross by themselves, but as a loving parent, you create the rule that they can only cross with you and when holding your hand. They may not agree and even may throw a fit over it thinking you're mean, but you know as an adult the dangers they can't even imagine.

G-d said through one of the Psalms that His ways were as far above our ways as the Heavens above the Earth. That means we aren't always capable of understanding His ways and why they are good for us just as a five year old isn't always capable of understanding why a parent makes the rules they make.

G-d created many pleasurable things for us to enjoy on the planet including sex. He did however state that there are boundaries in place as far as enjoying those pleasures, not to restrict our enjoyment but to protect us from harm (imagine the difference between enjoying an occasional ale or glass of wine vs. being a full blown alcoholic dying of liver damage).

Jesus was and *is* real (the Book of Hebrews describes him as our High Priest in the Heavenly Court and the Book of Revelation describes his return to us as the King who will rule all humanity from Jerusalem). Traditional Jewish thought believes that the Messiah is of divine origin but not necessarily the "Son of the Almighty" and not a deity or aspect of G-d the Father. He nevertheless is seen as the one who will rule as King and who will "repair the world" (Tikkun Olam) in the end of days. Christianity sees him as the Son of G-d, of virgin birth (first coming), and as the physical incarnation of G-d. Both agree that he is to come as King and Redeemer of the Earth (the Rabbinical sages even say that his followers will be called "The Ransomed of the L-rd").

Now, keep in mind that the vast majority of what I've said only applies directly to the redeemed community...that is, those of us who have "signed on the dotted line" just as the Children of Israel did at Mount Sinai and just as each individual believer did when they accepted Jesus and L-rd, Savior, and Messiah. To those who don't believe, it all seems like stuff and nonsense and the Bible even says that it would.

It is said that each human being serves something or someone. It's simply our choice as to what or who to serve. Secularist tend to serve either themselves or the rules of society (for the most part...a secularist will tend to drive faster than the speed limit if they think they won't be caught). The problem is that an individual's rules or the rules of society are fluid. They change to fit the moment or the mood or the whim. They sometimes change to fit the overall perceptions of right and wrong for a group (take miniskirts for example, to a bygone era, no woman with an ounce of decency would be caught dead in one...now they are common place and no one thinks it's wrong or indecent). In Nazi Germany, it was "legal" to murder six million Jews as well as Gypsies and other "undesirable" peoples. Does that make it right? Not according to G-d's timeless laws.

As I mentioned in a prior post, G-d is both ultimately just and ultimately merciful. If you do not choose to believe in the G-d of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, none of this will make sense and it will be easy to dismiss. Once you agree that their G-d is your G-d, then there's a lot of thinking and changing in your future (there was in mine and there still is).

G-d is like a loving father guiding us from infanthood into greater levels of spiritual, emotional, and mental maturity. We don't always understand how and why he guides us or why sometimes he disciplines us. Yet, He does all the things a father does. We can accept our earthly fathers (flaws and all) as basically having our well being in mind while we were growing up...establishing rules for us and disciplining us when we disobeyed (in order to help us grow up and to keep us safe). We who are believers work towards that same relationship with our Heavenly Father (who has no flaws whatsoever), moving towards growing up and struggling at times with his discipline when we disobey. When we willingly become believers, we take on our role as His child and agree to obey His commandments that exist for our benefit.

If you haven't made that agreement and commitment, naturally you are not going to agree with His guidance and will choose something else instead. Like I said, we all have a choice of what and who to serve...even if it's G-d...or even if it's ourselves.

 

My "religion" has no cardinals or bishops. The church I go to has no cardinals or bishops. Bottom line is this: nobody can keep me apart from my God. I don't have to confess to a priest, I don't have to ask a bishop if I can attend church, I'm not required to pay money to anyone, and I'm not required to provide service during any particular time. Thus... who is "in charge"? What corrupt person could possibly affect my relationship between myself and God?

 

I'm not sure I understand your point, I didn't refer to anyone being brainwashed.

I didn't quote any person because I don't want this to turn into a personal thing. Religious attacks on the scientific theory of evolution are anti-rational, I've no idea whether you subscribe to that or not.

Maybe it comes from experience of the futility of challenging people's beliefs. Intolerance is a strange word to use in this context: after all, in the ideal world of the Islamist and the Christian I would be stoned to death for not being a believer.

Yes, I studied the subject for many years.

No, it reinforces my observation that people see what they want to see.

Religious scholars from both camps have found such justifications countless times. At least trip was honest about the difficulty he found reconciling such things, and I was interested to read his viewpoint.

Random mutations. That still doesn't mean evolution is about blind chance.

 

Trip, Freddy and BM.

You guys obviously take your religious beliefs seriously.
Nothing wrong with that.

But having looked at this thread over the last week, I'd say you were coming across a little strong.
This has started to read like a bully boys club where anyone who doesn't agree with you gets picked to shreds.

I'm all for a debate, but this is something else.

If you don't believe me, read through all your posts since day one.

No more to say.

 

You weren't the one who said it. However, that is what has been said from those who dislike religion on this thread. I'm just curious as to what your response would be to someone saying that you just because you don't believe in any religion.

OK. I'll accept that first sentence of your here. It's a valid response. However, from your statements about illogic and working in IT I have to question it. You could not have been referring to anyone other than those of us who have posted here. I see that as an ad hominen attack.

Just what do you mean by a "religious attack" on evolution? There are only two options, creation or evolution. Supporting the creation side isn't an attack on evolution any more than supporting evolution is an attack on creationism.

Hmmm.... Saying that people who say their religion(their faith) is not guilty of anything anyone wants to claim it is are brainwashed is a very strange form of tolerance. Also, saying its pretty scary that people in IT which involves critical thinking skills can possibly believe in God and religion is also a very strange form of tolerance.

I say you're greatly mistaken in your last sentence, and if you're interested I can show why.

In what context, and more importantly, with what attitude?

Then why blame religion for so many things? If you can acknowledge that people see what they want to see, i.e. are looking to justify their actions, they will find that justification in anything. Religion is totally irrelevant in that case. They will find their justification wherever, and however, they can.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say Trip has problems reconciling some things. He gives a very good account of his faith.

As to the religious scholars you refer to, just what justifications have they found, and for what?

Personally, I do not find reconciling the violence recorded in the Bible with a just and loving God all that difficult.

Random mutations are mutations that happen by blind chance. There is no other way to describe them. Random is blind. If it wasn't, it couldn't be random by definition. If the mutations are not random they would have to have a design behind them, and that implies intelligence choice, which completely undermines evolution.

 

Johnny,

You're very welcome to your opinion on that, and I do appreciate your attitude. You've been logical, thoughtful, and tolerant. However, people have been saying we are brainwashed, and that its a very scary thing that we are in IT which involves critical thinking, etc.... You find when we respond to such allegations, and show that there are other logical, well-thought-out opposing positions, and that the statements made aren't all that logical that this makes us the bully boys? Isn't any debate about two things: dissecting the the evidence against your point of view, and showing logically how your point of view stands up to scrutiny?

If religious people are brainwashed and incapable of thinking logically, then lets see who really knows what they believe and why. If we have been brainwashed then we will not have a logical, coherent belief system. Let's explore things and see if the accusations made true or not. That's my main point in this thread. People say Christians are this and Christians are that, well, show it to be true. Show how our positions really are what the illogical mess they are alleged to be.

If a point of view cannot stand up to logical scrutiny, then is it well thought out? And if it isn't, who is that is living by prejudice and uninformed opinion, and who is that has really thought out what they live by and believe? For the most part we have responded very civilly, although must admit I have gotten sarcastic a couple of times when I was responding to ad hominen attacks, not a discussion or debate about issues.

The big thing I see is that many people assume that just because we have a faith in God, that it is a blind faith. I base my faith on the evidence I have seen that God exists, in nature, the Bible, the world around me, what has happened in my own life, and my belief in the principles that God says He stands for, and governs by.

 

Thats what happens when people believe in something but it happens in a stronger way with religious people, and they claim to be peaceful, and nice etc because they are supposed to be, because of some book that claims to have gods word inside.

But as soon as someone says well I dont believe because I think its a bunch of sh** then you havent got a hope.

Now I understand the suicide bombing thing, they are just taking it to the next level.

 

GBL,

If what I believe is a bunch of **** then show me it is, don't just make the statement and then walk away. Debate it. Prove your point. Show how I don't not have any logical points of view. So far, you have done none of that. You just get upset when your own assumptions are challenged.

 

Thats the point I can't prove that god does not exist just like you can't prove he is real.

I am not bothered when you challenege me, as said previously by JohnyMx (I think), It turns into a bullying tactics or who can shred this person down the most, because lots of people believe what we do so it must be right. The people who don't believe are wrong, they're going to hell, lets make examples of them etc etc.

Yeah well I say bollocks, Hans christian Anderson wrote the bible cos its got some pretty far fetched stories in it.

So Jesus walks past some bloke who apparently has Leprosy and Jesus waves his hand and he is cured, how about this some bloke had a nasty rash, Jesus got him some camomile lotion and said use this for a couple of days and you will be ok.

or

Lazerus was dead and Jesus healed him, how about he was unconcious and coincidently when Jesus was about he woke up.

How about Jesus was a normal bloke, who got coerced into doing a service for the community, who ended up being murdered for his good work

Look were are not gonna agree, but don't try to shoot me down in flames because I think your belief system is a bunch of crap, I won't shout or get angry because you believe in something you have never seen, and only have some writings as your proof.

People are entitled to believe what they want, if my next door neighbour said they believed in the flying spaghetti monster then I would respect their belief although I would think they are nuts.

I don't believe because I thinks its all lies, but I wont try to convert you, but you'll try to convert me this is another reason I think religions are wrong, believe us or your gonna go to hell, or we are gonna send you to hell.

Yeeah right, When I die, if by some chance I see st Peter or whoever is supposed to be a the gates of 'heaven' then I will apologise, personally I think that'll be it in and mister worm will be deciding which decomposing part of me will be its nurishment.

 

Actually, no. There's nothing in the Bible that says it's a capital crime to not believe in G-d. If you read the various crimes in the Bible for which one can be stoned, they all apply to the Children of Israel/Believers who originally agreed to abide by the laws, statues, and moral principles laid down by the Almighty. It was no crime to exist outside the redeemed community, otherwise, the Children of Israel would have had to carry rocks with them whenever they traveled. The idea wasn't to depopulate the planet of all people except Jews (in fact, the world has worked pretty hard over the centuries to do the opposite...wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth...and they're still at it today).

Also, If you go back to Post 118, I actually quoted a passage from an article I had written on my Congregation's website as to why we don't obey any of the "stoning" commandments today. Here it is again in case you missed it.

Jonny, I have to disagree with you. I don't think I've come on "too strong" at all. I've tried very hard to maintain a calm presentation of my faith in every single post and to the best of my ability, I don't believe I have unfairly accused or attacked or insulted anyone. If anyone does feel insulted by my words or actions, please believe me, it was never my intent. If you can point out specifically where I said something out of line, I'll be more than willing to apologize.

That said, there's a difference between "coming on too strong" and making my position known. Regardless of our belief systems, we all have the right to express our opinions here as long as we're not trying to flame other people or otherwise violate the R&Gs.

As I mentioned previously, I've notified the admin and mod staff that they are free to moderate this thread as they see fit. For the purposes of this thread (which I started and take responsibility for), I am not acting in my role as moderator but rather as another member of CertForums.

 

I find following your arguments very difficult; and you clearly do the same with mine: I did not say trip had a problem -> he said he had found it hard to come to terms with his god being responsible for the killing of everyone in a city, including young children. He had found a way of reconciling it, which I found interesting. I note that you say you do not find it difficult. I then see little to differentiate you from the muslims you are criticising. For all your talk of love, it is clear to me under the right circumstances you could be just as violent as they are.

You have misquoted and misunderstood my points so many times, it is clear you are seeing in them what you want to see, so there is little point in continuing.

I'm sorry you don't understand the theory of evolution, and know nothing of genetics. Why don't you try wikipedia?

 

Actually, that' s not quite what I said. The full text of my post can be found at the following link:

http://www.certforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=177261&postcount=118

To explain my understanding of how the Almighty can order the Children of Israel to destroy an entire community including the children, I'd have to go over my understanding of absolute justice and mercy which I've written about at length elsewhere in this thread. I have said that I've been in a synagogue where this issue was discussed very "dynamically", however I do believe that G-d is ultimately just and ultimately merciful and that His ways are above my ways. That concept will not be understandable to anyone who does not have a faith-context, so we are bound to disagree.

I also mentioned in post 118 and just repeated more recently, that there are reasons why believers do not engage in obeying commandments such as "stoning" and I refer one and all to review that material as well.

These sorts of debates can yield a great deal of good discussion as long as we can avoid "personalizing conflict". As a person of faith, I can't always expect that my context will be fully understood by someone outside that context. What seems like superstitious nonsense to others is that foundation of my faith in the Almighty to me. While some believe that a personal G-d doesn't exist, I believe with complete certainty. I know that I've experienced G-d in my life but because the experience is personal, I can't really "share" it with others (it's not that I'm unwilling, but a lot of it is subjective and I can't give people direct access to my memory or nervous system). Those who've had similar experiences understand but those who exist outside a faith context have a hard time with it.

Interestingly enough, non-believing people can and do experience the Almighty as well (if they didn't, no one would come to faith). It's just a matter of opening up to the experience and entertaining the possibility that He is real and cares about you (you meaning any of you) personally.

Many of us aren't going to agree with each other. That's ok. I don't expect everyone here to agree with my faith or understand my experience. Like I said, to many, it will seem like fiction or that I'm off my nut. I know that it's real and that I'm completely sane, but we each negotiate our relationship (or lack thereof) with our Creator as individuals and the experience is a bit different for each person.

Frankly, I'm not upset or offended by people not believing. It's the same in every sort of conversation I have of this nature. I can only hope and pray that some part of this will reach at least some folks out there (and who knows who's lurking and not posting?).

 

No trip, I didn't miss it, and as I've said in another post, I found it very interesting. Sorry if I didn't accurately carry over the summary of it in my response to Freddy.

Regarding my own safety in choosing not to worship the same god as you:

But what struck me was that you did not say you would never consider stoning someone a religious court convicted of false prophecy, merely that such a court did not currently exist. And I understand that your view is consistent with your religion, whose teachings such actions condone. As I understand that muslims are simply acting in accordance with their own religious teachings. The only difference is that they believe their courts as presently established are suitable - apart from that, I see no difference at all.

 

Then you have no idea about what the ideal world of the Christian is. A true Christian wouldn't stone you for not being a believer; a true Christian would tell you about Jesus Christ.

 

We're not picking on anyone. We're merely telling them that their preconceived notions about Christianity are not accurate.

When I tell newbies that they shouldn't go after the CCNA because that's what I believe, am I picking on someone or coming across a little strong?

 

MacAllan, thank you for putting it that way. No one has really asked this question in such a way before and it made me think. When the Messiah returns, will he re-establish the Sanhedrin (kind of the Biblical "Supreme Court") and all of the capital crimes and their punishments? Let's assume for a moment that he will and that subsequently, a false prophet arises and I personally am one of the witnesses to this false prophet. As a consequence of my being a witness who testifies against him, it would be my responsibility to throw one of the first stones at the individual, along with the other witnesses.

The reason for this is that, if you are going to accuse someone of a capital crime, you'd better be really, really sure of your facts and that you are correct in what you witnessed. You have to be sure enough that you'll help carry out the sentence if the accused is found guilty. It would be like you were a witness of a murder, the murderer was found guilty and sentenced to death in the electric chair. As the witness, you'd have to be so sure of your testimony, that you'd be willing to "throw the switch" and send thousands of volts of electricity into the convict's body, killing him.

The question then is, could I do it? I've never considered it before. Stoning is a horrible way to die. I don't even know how long it would take to pummel someone to death by throwing rocks at them. Frankly, I hope and pray I'm never put into that situation (of course, I'd have to be a witness to a capital crime in Israel in Messianic times). Right at this moment, I would have to say that I don't think I could do it. I understand *why* the system is set up that way. I mean, if you aren't 100% sure of what you saw, you better not just accuse someone of a capital crime. You'd have to be sure enough to send a man to his death and be one of the instruments of his death.

Still, it's hard to imagine any situation where I could kill. I suppose if someone was threatening my wife or children and the only way to protect them was to hurt or kill the person, then yes, I would do it...and probably be tortured by it for a long, long time to come. I wonder what the people who "threw the first stone" in ancient times felt like after wards. The Bible doesn't record this, but it's possible that, even though they knew they were enacting the judgment of a perfectly just G-d (and that judgment can seem incredibly harsh to we humans), that they went through a lot of grief and anguish as a result.

In the military, when someone is sentenced to die by firing squad (and I think that sentence only applies to someone proven to have deserted under fire in a time of war), only one of the rifles used in the firing squad has a live round...the rest have blanks. No one in the firing squad knows which rifle has the live round. This is done to try and protect the members of the firing squad because they can all at least try to tell themselves that the odds are, they didn't fire the fatal round.

I don't know if I could do it but if the command is directly from G-d and His justice, I would be commanded to do it. I want to obey G-d but I tend to see my obedience in the context of not actually harming another person, even if they are guilty of a capital crime. This has given me a lot to ponder. It does not cause me to doubt my faith but it does bring into question what self-imposed limits I have in enacting that faith.

We all have areas in our lives as believers where we think we could not be strong enough to make hard choices. Some of the early apostles were sawed in half for their faith...one was crucified upside down. In the middle ages, Jews who refused to be forceably converted to Catholicism were horribly maimed and even burned alive. Stories tell of Jews going to their death in fire singing the Shema (the holiest prayer in Judaism).

Could I be that strong? I hope G-d doesn't put me to the test...either by asking me to give my life in such a way for my faith or in taking the life of another. I guess I'll find out what happens when and if the situation actually occurs.

Thanks for the "eye opener", MacAllen.

 

Ever heard of William of Orange and the Battle of the Boyne per chance? Yes, a Dutch leader for the English Protestant army against Catholic Charles' army. The Catholic/Protestant tension goes back hundreds of years so don't be pointing any fingers at Ireland and relating that to tensions .

The IRA are classed as nationalists generally thought of as Cathlolics but there are protestant Irish too. The terrorism card is absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism or Christianity but create a divide with a distorted view of religion as a means for taking sides if you like, and I doubt that the 'terrorists' actually read a bible!

You must read the tabloids too much as news on the mainland always publicises emotive stories in Northern Ireland which are there to get a reaction and not show the whole truth. Please don't fall for the same old tabloid tricks and do us a favour and change the record.

 

Thanks for that, geezer. This really speaks more to the original reason I created this thread than the more recent discussions we've been having. I suppose one could say that Islamic terrorists may not actually read the Koran, either. I apologize if I seem dispassionate about this issue. I'm in the US and don't have a "lived experience" of this conflict. The issues you bring up though, do seem to mirror the ones I addressed when I created this conversation.