|
Post by captainbryce on May 14, 2018 21:59:05 GMT
I didn’t get that from what they were saying, but I will leave it to them to clarify if necessary. I sympathize (and to some extent agree); I’m only here to clarify the facts. ...again, I don't think many 'facts' can be attributed to the attribution of something as nebulous as 'influences' and to claim either way is not valid. My effort was to nullify this idea suggested by Clusium. That’s fair. All I’m saying is that evidence shouldn’t be dismissed based solely on them coming from a biased source, even a source with an obvious agenda. It should only be dismissed if it is demonstrably false and contradicted by known facts. Usually, it’s easy to do that with overtly biased religious propaganda sites. But it’s still a process that needs to be done in order to have a creditable counter argument. And sometimes even overtly bias sources can present actual facts (albeit spun and interpreted in such a way to further their agenda).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 15, 2018 13:54:55 GMT
This thread is just an upmarket version of a 'who would win in a fight between superman and batman?' dispute.
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on May 15, 2018 18:30:00 GMT
- One allowed polygamy and had many wives. The other says one man and one woman. - One suppresses religious freedom. The other permits it. - One ordered flogging and execution. The other offers forgiveness and restoration. - One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence. - One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his martyrdom promises his followers heaven. - One suffered from sin. The other was sinless.
Happy Ramadan. Happy Dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 15, 2018 18:54:45 GMT
- One allowed polygamy and had many wives. The other says one man and one woman. Jesus never actually says that. He spoke of relationships in the context of “marriage and divorce”. The only extramarital affairs he specifically addressed as sin were “adultery” and “prostitution”. He did not address other types of sexual relations that were common even during his time (such as concubines and mistresses or homosexual pairings). - One suppresses religious freedom. The other permits it.Not really. I mean, if by “permit” you mean with the understanding that people who do not follow him are already judged, and will be condemned for not accepting him as the ONLY way to the father. - One suffered from sin. The other was sinless. The thing about “sin” is it’s such a subjective term that ultimately boils down to interpretation. Jews recognized Christ as an obvious sinner since he repeated violated one of the Ten Commandments (working on Sabbath). Christians choose to ignore that sin because... “Jesus can do whatever he wants”. But his actions violated the Commandment, dispite the fact that it is hypocritical for the Jews accusing him to point that out.
|
|
gawaher
Freshman
@gawaher
Posts: 65
Likes: 16
|
Post by gawaher on May 15, 2018 19:39:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 16, 2018 8:09:24 GMT
- One allowed polygamy and had many wives. The other says one man and one woman. - One suppresses religious freedom. The other permits it. - One ordered flogging and execution. The other offers forgiveness and restoration. - One killed mockers and enemies. The other rises above such violence. - One promises earthly and heavenly rewards for dying in a holy war. The other says his martyrdom promises his followers heaven. - One suffered from sin. The other was sinless. Happy Ramadan. Happy Dichotomy. One of them said, "But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." In fact, one of the most dire threats made to humans is embedded in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." So non believers will perish. It seems Jesus might have preached that this "religious freedom" he supposedly permits would have dire consequences in the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 16, 2018 8:20:01 GMT
Morals are relative, and they are social constructs. If we judge them by modern moral standards, which include enlightenment and individualism, then the answer would be "I don't know". Are you suffering from a concussion or something? By modern moral standards, there can't be any possible question that the guy who spread his faith by preaching lived a more moral life than the guy who spread his faith by warfare! Please explain how you can possibly say "I don't know", as my mind is thoroughly boggled at your reply.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 16, 2018 8:54:14 GMT
Morals are relative, and they are social constructs. If we judge them by modern moral standards, which include enlightenment and individualism, then the answer would be "I don't know". Are you suffering from a concussion or something? By modern moral standards, there can't be any possible question that the guy who spread his faith by preaching lived a more moral life than the guy who spread his faith by warfare! Please explain how you can possibly say "I don't know", as my mind is thoroughly boggled at your reply. This is not so clear cut as you make out. The history of Christianity is littered with holy wars, or campaigns justified by the religion. Jesus, one ought to remember said that he did not come to bring peace, but brought a sword. It might have been a metaphorical weapon but the implication is still not one about peace. It would also be best to remember that Muhammad and Christ were born and lived in different cultural/social contexts and the pitfalls of judging ancient events in modern terms.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 16, 2018 9:25:10 GMT
Are you suffering from a concussion or something? By modern moral standards, there can't be any possible question that the guy who spread his faith by preaching lived a more moral life than the guy who spread his faith by warfare! Please explain how you can possibly say "I don't know", as my mind is thoroughly boggled at your reply. This is not so clear cut as you make out. The history of Christianity is littered with holy wars, or campaigns justified by the religion. And if we were discussing which religion is more moral, Christianity or Islam, this might be relevant. Since the comparison is between Jesus and Mohammed and not the religions that the two men founded or inspired, it isn't. That is not a discussion I am interested in. Who even knows what Jesus really said and what was made up by his followers? What is being argued here is not their respective messages, but their actions. Mohammed was a warlord who conquered the entire Arabian peninsula during his lifetime, Jesus wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 16, 2018 9:28:52 GMT
This is not so clear cut as you make out. The history of Christianity is littered with holy wars, or campaigns justified by the religion. And if we were discussing which religion is more moral, Christianity or Islam, this might be relevant. Since the comparison is between Jesus and Mohammed and not the religions that the two men founded or inspired, it isn't. That is not a discussion I am interested in. Who even knows what Jesus really said and what was made up by his followers? What is being argued here is not their respective messages, but their actions. Mohammed was a warlord who conquered the entire Arabian peninsula during his lifetime, Jesus wasn't. What does that have to do with their respective morals?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 16, 2018 9:38:58 GMT
if we were discussing which religion is more moral, Christianity or Islam, this might be relevant. Since the comparison is between Jesus and Mohammed and not the religions that the two men founded or inspired, it isn't. You also assume that warfare is, de facto immoral. This is not something either Christianity or Islam has taught. I would thought Jesus' own view of his role would be highly pertinent for obvious reasons. But I can see why you might wish to downplay Christ's judgement on his own self. While there can be strong doubts about the central Christian myths, it would hard to argue that every word of Christ's is made up. Personally speaking I find the Gospel transmission of what he said quite convincing and it is reasonable to assume that the words of JC would be the most treasured and remembered things to transmit of all. See above for the view about whether justified warfare existed for the ancients or not let alone whether it is always immoral. (Was the allies' war on the Nazis - remember the UK declared war on Germany, not the other way round - necessarily an immoral act?) As I understand it, Muslims ascribe to Mohammed a number of important virtues such as deference, impartiality, directedness, being respectful of differences among monotheists, and being discerning enough to tell truth from lies. These are not attributes typically ascribed to 'warlords', but to judges and sound political leaders. This is why Muslims often see Mohammed as a leader who happened to engage in warfare. There is no doubt, however, that, during his ten years in Medina M. personally commanded military attacks (and was injured). So yes, JC was more peaceable. But, as said above it is down to perspective and contexts, the societies and conditions in which they lived and moved and whether justified war ever exists. I don't hold a candle either for JC or M, but at least try and avoid making absolute comments about a topic best seen in shades of grey than black and white. Ultimately, most I think will agree it is the message of the great religious thinkers - which often have a good deal of things in common - than their respective lives which is more significant today.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 16, 2018 9:43:47 GMT
Morals are relative, and they are social constructs. If we judge them by modern moral standards, which include enlightenment and individualism, then the answer would be "I don't know". By modern moral standards, there can't be any possible question that the guy who spread his faith by preaching lived a more moral life than the guy who spread his faith by warfare! Is that so? I must have missed the memo that declared all wars immoral and illegal. In fact, warfare is still common in modern times, and some wars of past times are still called "just wars". So since I am not too familiar with Mohammed's campaigns, the most honest answer about his morality concerning warfare is "I don't know".
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 16, 2018 10:01:21 GMT
And if we were discussing which religion is more moral, Christianity or Islam, this might be relevant. Since the comparison is between Jesus and Mohammed and not the religions that the two men founded or inspired, it isn't. That is not a discussion I am interested in. Who even knows what Jesus really said and what was made up by his followers? What is being argued here is not their respective messages, but their actions. Mohammed was a warlord who conquered the entire Arabian peninsula during his lifetime, Jesus wasn't. What does that have to do with their respective morals? Oh for God's sake! Mohammed wasn't just an ordinary soldier fighting a war to defend his homeland. He instigated countless wars of conquest to subjugate as much territory as he could. How can you possibly dispute that according to present-day morals this is much worse than being a hippie preacher?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 16, 2018 11:29:21 GMT
He [Muhammad] instigated countless wars of conquest to subjugate as much territory as he could. Hyperbole, anyone? You've already been reminded that it is unwise to judge the ancients by modern moral standards, and out of historical context. It is also arguable that it is best for a leader to stand in robust defence of one's people and staunch beliefs, at least over wandering round swearing at fig trees and issuing platitudes to the faithful ... if one was to put things in your dismissive and sweeping way. Plenty of men of action have been devout men of god. And, if Jesus really was God for instance, as many Christians think, then genocide is attributed to Him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 13:56:54 GMT
Muhammad was a pedophile and a warlord. So Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 16, 2018 14:17:39 GMT
Muhammad was a pedophile and a warlord. So Jesus. During the first century, it appears to have been the general rule that young people who were "of age" could arrange their own marriages. A girl was considered of age at twelve years and one day. The Jewish rabbis set the minimum age for marriage at twelve years for the girl, and thirteen years for the boy. Anciently in biblical times, girls often married at or shortly following puberty, with the parent's consent. The Bible does not give an explicit age for someone to have sexual relations. That's why the warning about seeing everything through modern eyes. Yes, a modern reader might have doubts and misgivings about the age of Mohammad's brides (one of which at least was younger), but to assert the man a 'paedophile' is just a cheap shot which, as Cody found before, does not often reflect historical context, sensitivity, and mores. As I have said before, I don't have a brief for any religion in particular, but in the absence of so few defenders of Islam and Muslims here it is useful at least to suggest a balance and perspective away from the usual rhetoric and prejudices of fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 16, 2018 20:43:24 GMT
Hyperbole, anyone? You've already been reminded that it is unwise to judge the ancients by modern moral standards, and out of historical context. It is also arguable that it is best for a leader to stand in robust defence of one's people and staunch beliefs, at least over wandering round swearing at fig trees and issuing platitudes to the faithful ... if one was to put things in your dismissive and sweeping way. Plenty of men of action have been devout men of god. And, if Jesus really was God for instance, as many Christians think, then genocide is attributed to Him. That's all very well and good, but if you look back at my first reply to phludowin you will notice that it addressed specifically his contention that BY MODERN STANDARDS he didn't know who was more moral. That is what prompted me to reply and what is the root of all the discussion that followed. I maintain that BY MODERN STANDARDS there is no possible comparison between the morals of a hippie pacifist and a brutal warlord.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 16, 2018 22:38:45 GMT
Hyperbole, anyone? You've already been reminded that it is unwise to judge the ancients by modern moral standards, and out of historical context. It is also arguable that it is best for a leader to stand in robust defence of one's people and staunch beliefs, at least over wandering round swearing at fig trees and issuing platitudes to the faithful ... if one was to put things in your dismissive and sweeping way. Plenty of men of action have been devout men of god. And, if Jesus really was God for instance, as many Christians think, then genocide is attributed to Him. Erm, I didn't say that. I already said what you are saying in about 8 words though, yesterday!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 17, 2018 10:07:04 GMT
That's all very well and good, but if you look back at my first reply to phludowin you will notice that it addressed specifically his contention that BY MODERN STANDARDS he didn't know who was more moral. That is what prompted me to reply and what is the root of all the discussion that followed. I maintain that BY MODERN STANDARDS there is no possible comparison between the morals of a hippie pacifist and a brutal warlord. Unless, of course, for MODERN STANDARDS one chooses to redefine the two figures as, respectively, a self-destructive hippie dropout and great patriotic leader ...
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 17, 2018 10:27:34 GMT
I believe that Muhammad was a horrible man. I do not believe there ever was any person called Jesus. I think certain people created the myth of Jesus. Those people who created the myth of Jesus had some really crazy ideas. I wouldn't embrace teachings of any of them.
Bottom line is that both religions believe that they are the only true paths to attaining salvation/attaining heaven. I believe many innocent humans have been victims of this idea of religious people that their religion is the only true religion.
|
|