Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

S.A.M. said:
I've seen people whipping themselves in frenzy for Ashura. Inspite of it being forbidden by the imams.

Do any of them look like they are weeping?
Click to expand...
Some people self flagellate even for . . . non religious reasons. I don't think it really compares to crucifixion though.

S.A.M. said:
Where did the concept of self sacrifice by Jesus first come from?
Click to expand...
It's as old as humanity itself. Do you know the stories of Prometheus and Odin? No doubt there are similar ideas in the Dharmic religions.
 
Zephyr said:
Some people self flagellate even for . . . non religious reasons. I don't think it really compares to crucifixion though..
Click to expand...

Possibly, but we're thinking retrospectively, at the time, it was the norm.


It's as old as humanity itself. Do you know the stories of Prometheus and Odin? No doubt there are similar ideas in the Dharmic religions
Click to expand...
I meant specifically Jesus. When did his crucifixion become a symbol of sacrifice?
 
S.A.M. said:
That makes absolutely NO sense.

If you believe something, do you believe it is impossible?
If you believe something is possible, do you not believe it? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Click to expand...
No it makes perfectly good sense.

Suppose you are a cavewoman. You believe that the world is flat - as that is what you were taught as a child. Some other caveperson asks you if you believe that the world is round. You say no. I believe that the world is flat. Then they ask if the possibility exists that the world is round? You say..... yes it may be round, but, for now, I believe it is flat.


Suppose you are an ancient Greek woman. You believe that the world is inhibited by Olympian Gods - as that is what you were taught as a child. Some other ancient Greek person asks you if you believe that there is only One God. You say no. I believe that the world is inhibited by Olympian Gods. Then they ask if the possibility exists that there is only One God? You say..... yes it may be true, but, for now, I believe it is inhibited by many Olympian Gods.



Suppose you are a modern day Indian woman. You believe in Allah - as that is what you were taught as a child. Some other modern day person asks you if you believe that there is no God. You say no. I believe in Allah. Then they ask if the possibility exists that there is no God? You say..... these strange things we call words does not allow me to answer this question...:D

Please SAM,
Michael
 
re: Galileo
As I understand the persecution was in that fact the he, Galileo, interpreted scripture. Other than that he would have been left completely alone. ie: The Church has not problem with his scientific findings at all.

re: self sacrifice
IMO it's the Hero analogy. Maybe these guys wiping themselves fancy they are Hero's? I remember there was a religion in ancient roman empire where to become a member you had to personally cut off your own balls. Maybe someone should tell these guys that Ashia wants them to cut off their balls - I think it would do a lot of good in the long run.
 
S.A.M. said:
Well your interpretations are wrong. Galileo basically got up everyone's arse.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing but as I understand (from a BBC doco which may in fact be bunk) it was the fact that he had the audacity to interpret scripture something only the ruling clergy could do - you know, like an Imam or Ayatollah or SAM in modern day Islam :)

S.A.M. said:
As for the rest of your post, please continue to believe in things that mutually contradict each other. I'm not going to dissect it.
Click to expand...
No, they are no mutually contradicting. It is perfectly possible to believe that the world is flat while accepting it may be round. As a matter of fact you do this sort of thinking all day everyday. It's just that you have a problem doing it in regards to your religious indoctrination. It's not uncommon. I have heard people in CoS speak similarly about their belief in Xenu. It's just no possible to even entertain the thought that Xenu may not exist.


MII

The funny thing is, even the Chinese are smart enough to swallow their pride and learn from the Japanese. Something that only the most pragmatic of pragmatist Chinese can do - to their own benefit.
 
So if you believe today the world is round, you consider it possible it may actually be flat? :crazy:
 
S.A.M. said:
So if you believe today the world is round, you consider it possible it may actually be flat? :crazy:
Click to expand...
yes that's correct.
The fact that we have good reproducible evidence for the earth being round strengthens my belief that it is round - but, it might be flat, no matter what I believe is the case.

Are we coming to a bit of an agreement?
Michael
 
SAM said:
In that case, by your second argument, your first one is redundant. We cannot claim anyone is a theist any more than we can claim they are atheists.
Click to expand...
Why not ? We can argue either, based on evidence.

When the penalty for failure to affirm theism is impoverishment, banishment, even torture and death, public affirmation of theism is not particularly good evidence, is all - either way.
SAM said:
Thats your fantasy, a man who "dares" to call the Pope a simple minded idiot in public would hardly care about public opinion.
Click to expand...
What does "public opinion" have to do with this matter ? Galileo was not tried in the court of public opinion. He was tried by the ecclesiastical authorities, who had the power to kill him - slowly.
SAM said:
Well your interpretations are wrong. Galileo basically got up everyone's arse.

See teh link I gave iceaura

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/plane...ofgalileo.html
Click to expand...
That link is not God's word on the topic, nor is it particularly informative - heavy on the assertions, light on the evidence. Tycho Brahe's quasi-Ptolomeic explanation of the phases of Venus (he was forced to concede the main issue, and admit that Venus did not orbit the Earth) was certainly no more concise, soundly based, or persuasive to a reasonable person, than Galileo's, for example. The idea that Galileo was discredited on the science, and that's why they were threatening to kill him, is a bit ridiculous.

Meanwhile, you now appear to be simply dodging the matter at hand, which was the manner in which theists as opposed to atheists greet new and inconvenient theories about the nature of the world as provided by human imagination.

Which in turn had some bearing on Muslim reactions ("our attitude toward") to what they perceive as mockery of the Prophet, and therefore the thread.
 
Considering that both Copernicus and Galileo were encouraged by their respective Popes [before Galileo burned his boats] I find your arguments highly disingenuous. By your claim, all atheists are devious power hungry people who hide behind theistic facades, to the extent of becoming popes and dons, except when those Popes and dons are being complete morons. But when applied to communist atheists who could not build any viable scientific society, you're unwilling to accept the same argument.
 
SAM said:
Considering that both Copernicus and Galileo were encouraged by their respective Popes [before Galileo burned his boats] I find your arguments highly disingenuous. By your claim, all atheists are devious power hungry people who hide behind theistic facades, to the extent of becoming popes and dons, except when those Popes and dons are being complete morons. But when applied to communist atheists who could not build any viable scientific society, you're unwilling to accept the same argument.
Click to expand...
You are hardly likely to persuade me that I have said any such things.

If you don't want to deal with what I actually post, silence is better than foolishness of that kind.

Now, about the thread topic: the relevance of historical accounts of theistic reactions to inconvenient, heretical, or disturbing imaginings and hypotheses, blasphemy and so forth, to the Muslim reaction ("our attitude") toward what is perceived as mockery of the Prophet, seems plausible but unestablished. Are we just assuming it ?
 
iceaura said:
You are hardly likely to persuade me that I have said any such things.

If you don't want to deal with what I actually post, silence is better than foolishness of that kind.

Now, about the thread topic: the relevance of historical accounts of theistic reactions to inconvenient, heretical, or disturbing imaginings and hypotheses, blasphemy and so forth, to the Muslim reaction ("our attitude") toward what is perceived as mockery of the Prophet, seems plausible but unestablished. Are we just assuming it ?
Click to expand...

As much as you are assuming atheistic reactions to religion, I would say.

Michael said:
the arguments are not mutually exclusive. One is about belief and one is about possibility.
Click to expand...

So when you accept something as truth without evidence, you reason that it may not be true? Hm
 
SAM said:
to the Muslim reaction ("our attitude") toward what is perceived as mockery of the Prophet, seems plausible but unestablished. Are we just assuming it ?
”
As much as you are assuming atheistic reactions to religion, I would say.
Click to expand...
So help me out here - is that a yes or a no ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top