There is nothing wrong if we discuss our ideas and beliefs intellectually and respectfully.I'll add a caveat to that statement I.J., so long as there is no attempt to proselytize any religious belief. That would be out of the realm of intellectual discussion. I do also want to point out that under our laws you have an absolute RIGHT to build your mosques, practice your belief, wear your particular brand of clothing and read your holy book without fear of government interference, as does every religious sect and cult in America. This, is as you know is a Constitutional guarantee. Unfortunately the government cannot guarantee how your neighbors feel about your belief. There are no thought police. Islam is still considered an exotic religion in many areas of the U.S. including our region. Educating the general public about Islam will certainly help;e.g.a colleague and I wanted to create a comparative religion course for our students but it wouldn't fit in the class schedule so we incorporated it into other social studies classes. Educating the general public will dispell the myths perpetuated by xtian fundamentalists and conservative politicians who use fear to keep them in office. that and severe punishment for hate crimes. That being said, I do respect your right to believe as you wish and hope that you do the same. In most cases however, we'll agree to disagree regarding your faith. Cap't Jack
I do also want to point out that under our laws you have an absolute RIGHT to build your mosques, practice your belief, wear your particular brand of clothing and read your holy book without fear of government interference, as does every religious sect and cult in America. This, is as you know is a Constitutional guarantee. Unfortunately the government cannot guarantee how your neighbors feel about your belief. There are no thought police. Cap't JackAs long as your beliefs follow our laws currently in place, for example, you cannot marry off your two year old daughter, no matter how fervently you believe she would otherwise rot in hell, and you cannot beat your children to rid them of the devil, or kill your first born because it is not a male, because we have child abuse and murder laws, and laws stating minimal marital age requirements. I'm not directing these examples at your religion, just using them as examples.
As long as your beliefs follow our laws currently in place, for example, you cannot marry off your two year old daughter, no matter how fervently you believe she would otherwise rot in hell, and you cannot beat your children to rid them of the devil, or kill your first born because it is not a male, because we have child abuse and murder laws, and laws stating minimal marital age requirements. I’m not directing these examples at your religion, just using them as examples.Absolutely. No religious edict may, or ever will supersede an INDIVIDUAL'S right to protection of his/her fundamental, human rights under the Constitution. my point was that a religion may exist here in the U.S. under the restrictions placed on it by egalitarian civil law. And while we're on the subject, women have an inviolate right to control of their own bodies as it applies to section one of the fourteenth amendment. Sometimes we need to point the accusing finger here at home. Cap't Jack
But I do express my Atheism in as clear terms as I can. But the respect I received in return from a Theist was the personal ad hominem of "If you do not believe, then you are the Anti-Christ". I never blasphemed, disparaged, calumniated. I merely expressed disbelief in a scriptural God. There is the danger.You are free to be entitled to such beliefs. In the link I gave, I gave reference to the Quranic Commentary by the Scholar Shafi Usmani which stated: according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it [blasphemy] means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problem and rulings remain exempt from its perview. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/15888/P30/ There is nothing wrong if we discuss our ideas and beliefs intellectually and respectfully.
But I am starting a new thread, "Is God a person under law"Well, corporations are, so maybe it isn't such a big leap. Maybe you should ask if ALL gods should be persons under the law. Why discriminate? Lois I look forward to continuing our discussion there :)
Depends on your definition of proseltyzing. Some evangelical scholars like Daniel Wallace discuss the bible in academic ways (some of the things he says would not be comforting to inerrant Bible believers). But the main point I am making is that we all have freedom of speech so long as it is not harmful to the public.There is nothing wrong if we discuss our ideas and beliefs intellectually and respectfully.I'll add a caveat to that statement I.J., so long as there is no attempt to proselytize any religious belief.
Islam is still considered an exotic religion in many areas of the U.S. including our region. Educating the general public about Islam will certainly help;e.g.a colleague and I wanted to create a comparative religion course for our students but it wouldn't fit in the class schedule so we incorporated it into other social studies classes. Educating the general public will dispell the myths perpetuated by xtian fundamentalists and conservative politicians who use fear to keep them in office. that and severe punishment for hate crimes. That being said, I do respect your right to believe as you wish and hope that you do the same. In most cases however, we'll agree to disagree regarding your faith.That is fine As you said, most people do not know anything about religion. But I think the worse reality is when people do not study and still think that they are correct in their understanding of the world. This applies to all academic studies (religion, politics, sociollogy, history, etc.). For a funny example, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmvCkZxpb8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38 This is a problem I have encountered with people of all faith groups (Chrstian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, etc.) People should study academically (not watch the news), then respectfully address issues at hand.
As long as your beliefs follow our laws currently in place, for example, you cannot marry off your two year old daughter, no matter how fervently you believe she would otherwise rot in hell, and you cannot beat your children to rid them of the devil, or kill your first born because it is not a male, because we have child abuse and murder laws, and laws stating minimal marital age requirements. I'm not directing these examples at your religion, just using them as examples.I've been living in Chicago for 3 years. I am quite happy to be a law abiding citizen, like most other Muslims. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
Depends on your definition of proseltyzing. Some evangelical scholars like Daniel Wallace discuss the bible in academic ways (some of the things he says would not be comforting to inerrant Bible believers).As far as I know I.J. It has only one definition, viz. encouraging or inducing others to adopt your belief system whatever it may be via various coercive methods. Simply discussing them as an academic would, e.g. to parse the bible or Koran wouldn't IMO count as proselytizing. Evangelicals who consider the bible to be the inerrant word of god would not be remotely interested in taking an academic approach to xtianity. Cap't Jack
Though I started this discussion I dropped out of it a while back because the argument of those who disagreed with my position seemed to boil down to who you are more concerned about, the terrorists whomever they may be, or the unbridled power of our government to intrude upon our remaining privacy without restriction. We couldnt seem to make any progress on that front.
I have no doubt that our government poses the greater danger in the current situation, but no amount of logical argument was moving the chain for those who feel otherwise and are happy to sacrifice privacy ( and the liberty that depends upon it) for the perception of a safer world.
What made me come back to the discussion was the latest revelation from Snowdens stolen material which many of you have probably already seen in the news (See HERE]). I doubt those who are ardent supporters of the NSA surveillance program are going to let this change their mind but for anyone who was on the fence this has to raise and eyebrow when the government says " You have no need to worry about your privacy. We are abiding by the law and only looking at terrorist communications. trust us…blah blah blah.
Though I started this discussion I dropped out of it a while back because the argument of those who disagreed with my position seemed to boil down to who you are more concerned about, the terrorists whomever they may be, or the unbridled power of our government to intrude upon our remaining privacy without restriction. We couldnt seem to make any progress on that front. I have no doubt that our government poses the greater danger in the current situation, but no amount of logical argument was moving the chain for those who feel otherwise and are happy to sacrifice privacy ( and the liberty that depends upon it) for the perception of a safer world. What made me come back to the discussion was the latest revelation from Snowdens stolen material which many of you have probably already seen in the news (See HERE]). I doubt those who are ardent supporters of the NSA surveillance program are going to let this change their mind but for anyone who was on the fence this has to raise and eyebrow when the government says " You have no need to worry about your privacy. We are abiding by the law and only looking at terrorist communications. trust us...blah blah blah.The government should not be trusted. The Founding Fathers agreed. That's why they put checks and balances in the Constitution (even though there are a large number of people who would have them rescinded.) it is one of the responsibilities of the American citizen to call out the government when he sees abuses of power. Snowden did this. If a government can spy on other governments and its own people, there is no reason a citizen should not spy on the government and reveal illegal and immoral operations. To do or say nothing is approving of the abuses. Too few people investigate and publicize what governments get up to and we know all too well the results of that kind of complacency. Lois
Capt Jack
Evangelicals who consider the bible to be the inerrant word of god would not be remotely interested in taking an academic approach to xtianityNor in the reality of how thier religion arose and evolved.
Depends on your definition of proseltyzing. Some evangelical scholars like Daniel Wallace discuss the bible in academic ways (some of the things he says would not be comforting to inerrant Bible believers). But the main point I am making is that we all have freedom of speech so long as it is not harmful to the public.There is nothing wrong if we discuss our ideas and beliefs intellectually and respectfully.I'll add a caveat to that statement I.J., so long as there is no attempt to proselytize any religious belief.
Islam is still considered an exotic religion in many areas of the U.S. including our region. Educating the general public about Islam will certainly help;e.g.a colleague and I wanted to create a comparative religion course for our students but it wouldn't fit in the class schedule so we incorporated it into other social studies classes. Educating the general public will dispell the myths perpetuated by xtian fundamentalists and conservative politicians who use fear to keep them in office. that and severe punishment for hate crimes. That being said, I do respect your right to believe as you wish and hope that you do the same. In most cases however, we'll agree to disagree regarding your faith.That is fine As you said, most people do not know anything about religion. But I think the worse reality is when people do not study and still think that they are correct in their understanding of the world. This applies to all academic studies (religion, politics, sociollogy, history, etc.). For a funny example, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmvCkZxpb8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38 This is a problem I have encountered with people of all faith groups (Chrstian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, etc.) People should study academically (not watch the news), then respectfully address issues at hand.
As long as your beliefs follow our laws currently in place, for example, you cannot marry off your two year old daughter, no matter how fervently you believe she would otherwise rot in hell, and you cannot beat your children to rid them of the devil, or kill your first born because it is not a male, because we have child abuse and murder laws, and laws stating minimal marital age requirements. I'm not directing these examples at your religion, just using them as examples.I've been living in Chicago for 3 years. I am quite happy to be a law abiding citizen, like most other Muslims. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ Abdul Hakeem Wrote: But the main point I am making is that we all have freedom of speech so long as it is not harmful to the public. What is harmful to the public is a relative term. Speech should also not be harmful to any individual member or group of members of the religion itself, but,, alas, it often is. That, too, should be against freedom of speech. Lois
Capt Jack Evangelicals who consider the bible to be the inerrant word of god would not be remotely interested in taking an academic approach to xtianity Nor in the reality of how thier religion arose and evolved.Believe me, that's a topic they want to completely circumvent. Studying the history of the early church would cause many questions to arise. It's faith shaking to say the least but it could lead to, dare I say it, the abandonment of their faith. Cap't Jack
Studying the history of the early church would cause many questions to arise. It’s faith shaking to say the least but it could lead to, dare I say it, the abandonment of their faith.Yup. But some evangelicals have tried to respond to this. Whether one finds it convincing or not is a seperate issue. Personally, I just prefer watching this video between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel Wallace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA Both sides of the debate have good experienced scholars who both give good arguements for there views. A great way to have a respectful discussion of ideas.
I.J. Video debates are very informative but due to time constraints they just touch on the high points. If you haven’t read Erhman’s books, or Price and Carrier, or Crossan or Aslan’s latest one you’ll, get a more complete picture, that is if you have the time and inclination. BTW, I have Aslan’s book on Islam, “No God But God” and will read it after the Plait book. Have you read this one yet? he took a lot of flack for “Zealot” because he is a Muslim.
Cap’t Jack
Debates do have their contsraints, but its a good way of knowing how opposite of the spectrum react to each other’s view.
It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to do that with books and articles.
My first exposure to New Testament criticism was by Dr. Jerald Dirks.
I have read a few Dr. Ehrman’s books, as well as some pages and articles from a number of authors including Prof. Crosson.
Haven’t read much about Dr. Carrier, but I did see this ‘‘interesting’’ discussion of his studies by Ehrman.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ (I in no way endorse any mockery done to either scholar)
I’ve also seen at least one of Carrier’s debates (with the scholar Mike Licona)
To a much lesser degree, I’ve also taken from here.
http://www.ntgateway.com/
Because of my exposure to this kind of variety of scholars, I am not too interested in reading “Zealot”.
I haven’t read other books by Reza Aslan either.
Debates do have their contsraints, but its a good way of knowing how opposite of the spectrum react to each other’s view. It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to do that with books and articles.I agree and my response to your posts was based on your almost exclusive use of videos to bolster your arguments. Once again, nothing wrong with that, especially the Muslim comic guy, funny and informative, but sketchy. Now as to time constraints and bloviated posting, a carefully constructed synopses of the info would lend more credence to your argument IMO. Also, don't count Aslan out without reading the books, especially the one on Islam. It's very informative and, like your posts myth dispelling. Cap't Jack
I agree and my response to your posts was based on your almost exclusive use of videos to bolster your arguments. Once again, nothing wrong with that, especially the Muslim comic guy, funny and informative, but sketchy.I only use videos for other people's conviences. From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos. Thus video usage is just to help present ideas. I do not prefer using them as sources.
I only use videos for other people’s conviences. From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos. Thus video usage is just to help present ideas. I do not prefer using them as sources.Personally I.J. I'd rather read your take on the subject, how you synthesize the material is of more interest to me as, with few exceptions we've read the same books. I know Ehrman's, Crossan's and Carrier's contentions and those who don't can run to Wiki or YouTube for a quick reference. I'm more interested in a muslim's take on the subject. That's why I read your posts. For instance, are Djinns and angels important to you as a believer? how do you reconcile religion with faith? Cap't Jack
Before I get to that I should emphasize that I am only telling my personal views backed with the evidence I have seen. I am not a theologican or philosopher (in fact I am still working to get my first degree!). My opinion should be paid attention to only when I give evidence. Also it would probably take a dozen posts to properly explain the views i have formed over the years. This is ony to give people a general idea. My general take on religion is that it one should be neutral (agnostic maybe) while studying different faiths. A religion to follow must 1. at the minimum should not have any empirical mistakes. (historical, scientific, etc) 2. One thing that should be kept in mind is that something cannot be proven or disproven. Things which are not testable CANNOT be used to disprove or prove a point. They are just untestable. There are many other things which cannot be proven (such as angels). For that reason, I would never base my faith on anyone soley on someone who claims to have seen an angel. At the same time, I do not reject other religions (Christianity for example) for believing in this claim because I can't disprove it. 3. Religions should alsohave something "special" which show that it is divine. However, many people mistakenly attribute supernatural things where they do not belong. In this regards, one of my favorite books is by the Joe Nickell Looking for a miracle. He has shown that many of the miraculous events do indeed have natural explanations http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Miracle-Weeping-Stigmata-Visions/dp/1573926809 A sample article of his works may be seen here http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima/ This does not disprove miracles, it just means that unless there is "living miracle" we can't be fully certain they happen. An example of living miracle could be like a normal person having his head chopped off on Mars (away from civilization) yet still living.I only use videos for other people’s conviences. From personal experience, most people do not like reading ar6ticles and prefer videos. Thus video usage is just to help present ideas. I do not prefer using them as sources.Personally I.J. I'd rather read your take on the subject, how you synthesize the material is of more interest to me as, with few exceptions we've read the same books. I know Ehrman's, Crossan's and Carrier's contentions and those who don't can run to Wiki or YouTube for a quick reference. I'm more interested in a muslim's take on the subject. That's why I read your posts. For instance, are Djinns and angels important to you as a believer? how do you reconcile religion with faith? Cap't Jack
This was a general way of approaching religion. There may be other points which are important, but these are the most
top ones I can think from the top of my head. I have my own way of reconciling each criteria with Islam if anyone wants to know.
Wish I could go into more details now, but I gotta rush to my Univ Library for a HW assignment before it closes.
I would add another criteria to a religion (worthy of being followed).
It must be more beneficial than harmful to humankind.