Politics or Religion?

#1
I would argue that the basic principles of Judaism, Islam and Christianity have far more in common than they give cause for division.

All three are based on the 10 Commandments, which form a sound basis for a civilised society.

Judaism and Islam (to the best of my shaky knowledge) retain “an eye for an eye” which, in itself, can be interpreted not so much as a call for vengeance as a prohibition on escalating a situation. “An eye for an eye” not “an eye and some holiday vouchers for an eye”.

Jesus brought a more Buddhist approach to Judaism with his suggestion that it may be best to forgive the transgressions of others and leave judgement to God. But he was still a good Jew. It’s one of those things that depend on translation, but I remember in Bibles I saw as a child that Jesus never said he was the son of God. When asked, he responded, “so you say”, which is not the same as claiming to be a Deity.

Jesus’ seemingly conflicting statements of “in my Father’s house there are many mansions” and “no-one comes to the Father but through me” are not irreconcilable. I had it explained to me thus:

“In my Father’s house there are many mansions” – there are many different ways of worshiping and reaching God

“No-one comes to the Father but through me” – Jesus believed no one could reach God without adhering to his philosophy of tolerance, compassion and love combined with following the 10 Commandments. For “through me” read “through my teachings” and it makes sense.

Followers of Islam regard Jesus as a great prophet, though not so great as Mohammed. This, to me at least, suggests that Jesus never claimed to be the begotten son of God – in the eyes of Jews and Muslims alike that would be the ultimate heresy.

Whenever religion is discussed I find myself thinking of Kipling’s lines

"If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

By prohibiting translation Mohammed knew what he was about. Unfortunately, it still does not make it impossible for his teachings (which if you speak to moderate Muslims seem fair and reasonable) to be perverted by malevolent megalomaniacs (whatever happend to humility?) who need a means of terrorising their own peoples into submission, let alone anyone else.

Christians have not been blameless in this from the Crusades, through the Inquisition, and beyond into the divisions within the Christian church itself today.

What politically motivated malefactors do to sound teachings cannot be blamed on all followers of the original prophets or on the prophets themselves.

I pity both Jesus and Mohammed. They were honest men.

Now take me off and burn me.
 
#2
...and to think yer average squaddie is supposed to have the literacy and numeracy skills of an eleven year old!
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#5
Firehorse said:
I would argue that the basic principles of Judaism, Islam and Christianity have far more in common than they give cause for division.

All three are based on the 10 Commandments, which form a sound basis for a civilised society.

Judaism and Islam (to the best of my shaky knowledge) retain “an eye for an eye” which, in itself, can be interpreted not so much as a call for vengeance as a prohibition on escalating a situation. “An eye for an eye” not “an eye and some holiday vouchers for an eye”.

Jesus brought a more Buddhist approach to Judaism with his suggestion that it may be best to forgive the transgressions of others and leave judgement to God. But he was still a good Jew. It’s one of those things that depend on translation, but I remember in Bibles I saw as a child that Jesus never said he was the son of God. When asked, he responded, “so you say”, which is not the same as claiming to be a Deity.

Jesus’ seemingly conflicting statements of “in my Father’s house there are many mansions” and “no-one comes to the Father but through me” are not irreconcilable. I had it explained to me thus:

“In my Father’s house there are many mansions” – there are many different ways of worshiping and reaching God

“No-one comes to the Father but through me” – Jesus believed no one could reach God without adhering to his philosophy of tolerance, compassion and love combined with following the 10 Commandments. For “through me” read “through my teachings” and it makes sense.

Followers of Islam regard Jesus as a great prophet, though not so great as Mohammed. This, to me at least, suggests that Jesus never claimed to be the begotten son of God – in the eyes of Jews and Muslims alike that would be the ultimate heresy.

Whenever religion is discussed I find myself thinking of Kipling’s lines

"If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

By prohibiting translation Mohammed knew what he was about. Unfortunately, it still does not make it impossible for his teachings (which if you speak to moderate Muslims seem fair and reasonable) to be perverted by malevolent megalomaniacs (whatever happend to humility?) who need a means of terrorising their own peoples into submission, let alone anyone else.

Christians have not been blameless in this from the Crusades, through the Inquisition, and beyond into the divisions within the Christian church itself today.

What politically motivated malefactors do to sound teachings cannot be blamed on all followers of the original prophets or on the prophets themselves.

I pity both Jesus and Mohammed. They were honest men.

Now take me off and burn me.
Not a theologian then? :D
 
#7
BigJobs said:
Don't give him credit, he's just copied and pasted from www.zealot.com
BJ, you funnin' us, boy? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go on, own up 'cos I'm b*ggered if I can find any comparative theology on the above site; plenty of opportunities to buy goods, though.

Firehorse; good post, though.... For a wee squaddie... :wink: :wink:
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#8
Bit late for a fukking debate like this one but here goes :D
Firehorse said:
It’s one of those things that depend on translation, but I remember in Bibles I saw as a child that Jesus never said he was the son of God. When asked, he responded, “so you say”, which is not the same as claiming to be a Deity.
Jesus was indeed crucified for the blasphemy of claiming to be the son of God.
Firehorse said:
Jesus’ seemingly conflicting statements of “in my Father’s house there are many mansions” and “no-one comes to the Father but through me” are not irreconcilable. I had it explained to me thus:
“In my Father’s house there are many mansions” – there are many different ways of worshiping and reaching God
“No-one comes to the Father but through me” – Jesus believed no one could reach God without adhering to his philosophy of tolerance, compassion and love combined with following the 10 Commandments.
Crap. He actually meant what he said. Not some Jehovah witness doublespeak rewriting of what he said :evil: He meant exactly what he said. You don't get to the the father unless you accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord.
He made it crystal clear we MUST be born again if you want to be with God. He died on the cross in fukcing agony to make that possible. To make that an event that can and does happen, not to ask you to follow a fukcing 'philosophy'!
For “through me” read “through my teachings” and it makes sense.
Jesus speaks clearly and makes perfect sense without your help thankyou!
It may make sense of it and tidy it up for you but you are re-writing Jesus here mate.
Firehorse said:
Followers of Islam regard Jesus as a great prophet, though not so great as Mohammed. This, to me at least, suggests that Jesus never claimed to be the begotten son of God – in the eyes of Jews and Muslims alike that would be the ultimate heresy.
It was and that's why they crucified him.
Firehorse said:
I pity both Jesus and Mohammed. They were honest men.
Pity Mohammed if you like as he is dead and rotted.
Don't pity Jesus..he's alive :wink:
Right who's round is it :roll:
 
#9
Nice post Firehorse............................

Missed out faith though mate!!

Christians believe........ they have faith that Jesus was the Son of God.

Muslims state that Mohammed was a Prophet of God as was Jesus.

The position from which you argued is seemingly an aethiestic point of view, after all you set good points and points against each other. What however you fail to understand is that religeon does not come down to catchphrases, soundbites and semantics; it comes down to faith.

For one my faith does not advocate in anyway shape or form blowing other people up as well as myself.

You may be right...........there are divides in all religeons, especially the Anglican Church at the moment.....................but one thing remains strong, faith............found whenever you need it!!!
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#10
sid_james said:
Bit late for a fukking debate like this one but here goes :D
Firehorse said:
It’s one of those things that depend on translation, but I remember in Bibles I saw as a child that Jesus never said he was the son of God. When asked, he responded, “so you say”, which is not the same as claiming to be a Deity.
Jesus was indeed crucified for the blasphemy of claiming to be the son of God.
Firehorse said:
Jesus’ seemingly conflicting statements of “in my Father’s house there are many mansions” and “no-one comes to the Father but through me” are not irreconcilable. I had it explained to me thus:
“In my Father’s house there are many mansions” – there are many different ways of worshiping and reaching God
“No-one comes to the Father but through me” – Jesus believed no one could reach God without adhering to his philosophy of tolerance, compassion and love combined with following the 10 Commandments.
Crap. He actually meant what he said. Not some Jehovah witness doublespeak rewriting of what he said :evil: He meant exactly what he said. You don't get to the the father unless you accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord.
He made it crystal clear we MUST be born again if you want to be with God. He died on the cross in fukcing agony to make that possible. To make that an event that can and does happen, not to ask you to follow a fukcing 'philosophy'!
For “through me” read “through my teachings” and it makes sense.
Jesus speaks clearly and makes perfect sense without your help thankyou!
It may make sense of it and tidy it up for you but you are re-writing Jesus here mate.
Firehorse said:
Followers of Islam regard Jesus as a great prophet, though not so great as Mohammed. This, to me at least, suggests that Jesus never claimed to be the begotten son of God – in the eyes of Jews and Muslims alike that would be the ultimate heresy.
It was and that's why they crucified him.
Firehorse said:
I pity both Jesus and Mohammed. They were honest men.
Pity Mohammed if you like as he is dead and rotted.
Don't pity Jesus..he's alive :wink:
Right who's round is it :roll:
Pithy and precise
 
#11
sid_james said:
Bit late for a fukking debate like this one but here goes :D
Firehorse said:
It’s one of those things that depend on translation, but I remember in Bibles I saw as a child that Jesus never said he was the son of God. When asked, he responded, “so you say”, which is not the same as claiming to be a Deity.
Jesus was indeed crucified for the blasphemy of claiming to be the son of God
If Jesus was executed by crucifixion by the Romans it would not have been for blasphemy against Judaism but for political subversion/revolt against the Roman occupying power.The Jewish Sanhedrin had ample power to punish blasphemy by ordering that he be stoned to death.

CRUCIFIXION for blasphemy="CRUCI-FICTION"
 
#12
Your post reminds me of the scene from 'The Life of Brian", Galgers. "Crucifixtions to the right, stonings to the left." But what you're saying's perfectly accurate. JC was slotted for being a threat to the administration, not for religious deviancy.
 
#14
claymore said:
Your post reminds me of the scene from 'The Life of Brian", Galgers. "Crucifixtions to the right, stonings to the left." But what you're saying's perfectly accurate. JC was slotted for being a threat to the administration, not for religious deviancy.
"At least it gets you in the open air"
 
#15
[quote="galgenberg"At least it gets you in the open air"[/quote]

That's the spirit. Always look on the bright side of life. :lol:
 
#16
Why resort to what is written in the various faiths' 'holy' books? At best they are based upon verbal story-telling and produced long after the personalities had moved on. Just one very simple example - the same 'holy' book exhorts us to seek an eye for an eye and also to turn the other cheek.
What is important surely is the adoption of a set of beliefs that allow all to live in unity regardless of whether they adhere to Mohammed, Christ, Vishnu, Buddha or the cat at No.47 down the road. All the while one tries to live as if it were 2000 years ago, one will not benefit from or contribute to, the present.
 
#17
galgenberg said:
claymore said:
Your post reminds me of the scene from 'The Life of Brian", Galgers. "Crucifixtions to the right, stonings to the left." But what you're saying's perfectly accurate. JC was slotted for being a threat to the administration, not for religious deviancy.
"At least it gets you in the open air"
But ultimatly they pinned it on religion

Sign on the top of the cross "Jesus of Nasareth, King of the Jews" or words to that effect. It may have been administration which orchestrated his execution but they made it look like it was for his claims.
 
#18
Operator said:
galgenberg said:
claymore said:
Your post reminds me of the scene from 'The Life of Brian", Galgers. "Crucifixtions to the right, stonings to the left." But what you're saying's perfectly accurate. JC was slotted for being a threat to the administration, not for religious deviancy.
"At least it gets you in the open air"
But ultimatly they pinned it on religion

Sign on the top of the cross "Jesus of Nasareth, King of the Jews" or words to that effect. It may have been administration which orchestrated his execution but they made it look like it was for his claims.
How do we know with any certainty that any of these stories/myths have any basis in history at all?there is very little archaelogy to support the Bible and it only emerges in its modern form relatively recently having been edited several times most noticeably by Bishop Irenaus.Why does Martin Luthers' Bible contain several more books than the King James version?

As to Islam.I have posted before about the thoroughly dubious origins of this superstition and cannot be arrsed repeating them.

There is no arguing with "persons of faith" all you can do is try and ignore them until they start to intrude upon you and yours.I suppose the only thing to do then is refer them to Bernoulli for Pit Action
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#19
galgenberg said:
How do we know with any certainty that any of these stories/myths have any basis in history at all?there is very little archaelogy to support the Bible and it only emerges in its modern form relatively recently having been edited several times most noticeably by Bishop Irenaus.Why does Martin Luthers' Bible contain several more books than the King James version?

There is no arguing with "persons of faith" all you can do is try and ignore them until they start to intrude upon you and yours.I suppose the only thing to do then is refer them to Bernoulli for Pit Action
Secondly absolutely :D

Firstly well you have to go back to the Vulgate, and the production after that of the Scholastic errors that preferred the masoretic text over the septuagint...(but you are not really interested are you?) :D
 
#20
Benjaminw1 said:
galgenberg said:
How do we know with any certainty that any of these stories/myths have any basis in history at all?there is very little archaelogy to support the Bible and it only emerges in its modern form relatively recently having been edited several times most noticeably by Bishop Irenaus.Why does Martin Luthers' Bible contain several more books than the King James version?

There is no arguing with "persons of faith" all you can do is try and ignore them until they start to intrude upon you and yours.I suppose the only thing to do then is refer them to Bernoulli for Pit Action
Secondly absolutely :D

Firstly well you have to go back to the Vulgate, and the production after that of the Scholastic errors that preferred the masoretic text over the septuagint...(but you are not really interested are you?) :D
BY CTHULU and NYARLATHOTEP,You and I must purchase our waterproofs in the very same ANORAK shop.I have been very interested in these in the past especialy the "Wicked Bible" of 1614?(where the printer left the "not" out of the Commandment against Adultery) Now they as of as much value as the "NECRONOMICON" but less entertaining and an open sore on the world.

I suppose this thread has some value in that it has exposed the members of "The Kirk of Arrse" as the god-botherers they are :lol:
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top