cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)
Scholarly consensus = fantasy... (none / 0)
most scholars would interpret those teachings the same way i interpret them.

I challenge that. I'd bet you could hardly find two "scholars" who agree on everything 100%. Why is it that after all those centuries there is still need for scholars? It should be settled by now, if it was that easy to interpret.

IMO, anyone who takes these old story books seriously, is a deranged person. Even without the most atrocious passages they present still epic failures (literally) in human rights' issues, reason and logic.

So, the majority can never be wrong? There were once majorities in the human population for both slavery and infanticide. Not to mention that holy war was once a majority position in Christianity and Islam. For a long time in human history the majority treated minorities like vermin, and not only minorities, but also women.

Furthermore, it does not matter if there is only a minority "misinterpreting" (or is it the right interpretation? Who are you and your scholars to know what God's will is?) the old stories by being violent and aggressive. THEY set the agenda, they change the perception, they decide what happens - even against the will of a so-called peaceful silent majority (just look at the U.S. Congress). And for all I know most are a silently nodding majority.

How many Al-Qaeda members (and other "different" interpretations) are there compared to Muslims in the world? And still, they changed the world history with their actions. What have peaceful Muslims achieved recently? A non-Muslim must assume they don't even exist (I am not talking about simple folks btw, but activists). Same goes for Christians, Jews and afaik Hindus.

people use what ever they can to justify their actions.

Exactly right, and vague religious texts are the easiest thing in the world to justify just about everything. That is why religion 2.0, what we call the rule of law, is an enormous progress towards unambiguity and should replace religous doctrines in every regard. It still can be twisted and turned, but that is much, much harder to do.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 03:29:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right! (none / 0)
"That is why religion 2.0, what we call the rule of law, is an enormous progress towards unambiguity and should replace religous doctrines in every regard. It still can be twisted and turned, but that is much, much harder to do. "

It needs a genius like Bush to do so.;)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/05/2010 03:45:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
John Yoo (none / 0)
Cheney hired the "right" guys to come up with excuses. Have you seen John Yoo? That guy is as slick and sleazy as it gets, I don't think you can even grab him, he'd just slip and glide through your fingers and creep away like a big fat maggot.

And don't forget: as far as we think we know, they overbent and broke the law.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 04:26:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mirror (none / 0)
"And don't forget: as far as we think we know, they overbent and broke the law."

One could also say they misinterpreted the writings.

Whatever set of rules or guidelines you have, some people will try to take advantage of them. Some of those people will be slick and sleazy. The older the guidelines are the more examples you will have of people misusing them.

It's called human nature.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/05/2010 04:47:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sad but true. (none / 0)
Whatever set of rules or guidelines you have, some people will try to take advantage of them. Some of those people will be slick and sleazy. The older the guidelines are the more examples you will have of people misusing them.

It's called human nature.

Yup, absolutely. That is why these guidelines should be reviewed and refined all the time, evolution-style.

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 05:26:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
However (none / 0)
When religious people review and refine their guidelines (for example on what age is appropriate for marriage) you use that to make fun of them and say that their God should have known what guidelines are appropriate now, instead of just being satisfied that they change their guidelines, too.

If they don't change with times you call them religious nuts, if they change you make fun of their religion. That doesn't create an atmosphere that encourages discussion.
But I assume you don't want discussion, because that would require you to try to understand the position of other people.

It would be terrible for you if you would have to admit that not all religious people are idiots.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/05/2010 05:48:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Moreover (none / 0)
If they don't change with times you call them religious nuts, if they change you make fun of their religion.

Yes, of course, because at the same time, they claim their god is eternal and all-knowing, which pretty much elevates their position to immutable and infallible. If they were just honest that they make up the rules as they go (like the rest of us) and not attribute them to the sky-daddy, everything would be okey-dokey. It is astounding, though, that religious positions change over time yet every generation claims that it has always been like they practice it and that that's the only way to do it that God approves of. Please keep in mind that I normally don't refer intellectual theologians who are honest and informed about church and doctrinal history, but fundamentalist preachers and of-the-street-bigots. Even if I regard all believers as superstitious and deluded to some extent, I recognize a huuuuge difference in the degree of delusion and -especially- hypocricy. You, e.g., are a category 1 religious nut with a very low threat level ;). If we met I may be able to shortly turn my back towards you without immediately fearing for my life or maybe even go without a weapon altogether.

But I assume you don't want discussion, because that would require you to try to understand the position of other people.

Of course I want discussion, else I would not be here. And, believe it or not, I can understand and emulate many positions of other people.

It would be terrible for you if you would have to admit that not all religious people are idiots.

I am not in favor of (and not very apt in) digging up my old quotes but I think I explicitly stated a couple of weeks ago in this forum that I don't think that all religious people are idiots. Let me put it this way: some people are schizophrenic, but not necessarily dumb (in the beginning). Those are two different axes. Still they believe in things that are not objectively true (in the beginning ;).

I really don't want to insult anyone, except when the heat of an argument calls for a cheap joke ;).

by eborujion on 02/05/2010 07:01:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Only level 1? Now I'm disapointed:( (none / 0)
And a little tired. I think we will find further opportunities to discuss all this.

Now I just hope the voices in my head let me sleep. Their team effort can be quite tireing sometimes, at least I know that everybody wants to help me.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/05/2010 07:32:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can I get to level 2 (none / 0)
if I deny evolution 3 times?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/05/2010 07:33:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't bother (none / 0)
Level 1 is not the lowest threat level. There may be 0,1-0.99, e.g. Jainists may be as bat-shit crazy as they want to, they don't really represent a threat. You can easily out-run them because they have to watch if they don't squash an insect while pursuing you.

by eborujion on 02/06/2010 06:10:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Haha (none / 0)
Those Jainists are pussies. I'm more dangerous than them.;)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 02/06/2010 06:32:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)