Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it just affirms my faith in Islam because Jesus' importance is undeniable but the Quran explicitly denounces his divinity.

For me, the importance of Jesus has nothing to do with his divinity or non-divinity. It has to do with his message of non-violence and loving your enemies. I know Muslims are always trying to convert people by saying "Muslims believe in Jesus too, just not that he's divine." For me, however, it's all about the message. I've read the Koran and the Koranic message of retribution and eye-for-eye (which Jesus got rid of) is not a Jesus I could follow.

I just said it reaffirms MY faith, but you managed to twist this around into proselytizing. Do I need to follow up every post about Jesus with a disclaimer? Or should Muslims just be prohibited from mentioning Jesus? What do you expect us to do?

And I said "Muslims like to mention Jesus...." I didn't say "you in particular like to mention Jesus...."

[Anonymous]

Heck, Muslim PP even started a thread on "Why Muslims dobt believe in the divinity of Christ" a week or two ago. What exactly are we supposed to think? Is this a subtle micro aggression of Christianophobia?

[Anonymous]

I embrace Jesus. I believe in many Christian principles. Not all. Muslims should be able to distinguish between different belief systems (since there are just a couple of things Islam does not agree with) without assigning sinister motives to them.

[Anonymous]

I am okay with Muslim PP mentioning that Islam shows reverence for Jesus. I would say this is probably not known by 98% of the US population, and that in these days of ISIS, it is positive for all to find points of commonality that can foster better dialogue. I think it is fine to make this point several times as different posters read different threads.

I have noticed, however, on other Muslim threads--have no idea of Muslim PP on this thread is one of them or not--that a couple of Muslim posters write things that treat other (nonMuslim) DCUM posters as though they are as ignorant of Islam as this 98% even when their posts show a high level of familiarity with, and even expertise in, Islam. Once this knowledge becomes apparent through the posts, these Muslim posters would be well advised to respond in a manner that acknowledges this to avoid getting trapped in unproductive arguments that arise owing to their underestimation of the audience.

[Anonymous]

There was one poster who had some knowledge in the way of scholars and some islamic historical context. I already acknowledged this but also said a little knowledge is dangerous. It can give a person a false sense of security and prevent them from seeking additional knowledge. Such was the case with that poster. This is why she was was completely befuddled when the other Muslim poster said women had equality in Islam. She did not think about the equality in terms of the value of rights, she thought of equality in strictly linear terms, the way a self taught westerner would think. She had no idea about sura Ash Shurra and the verse that addressed men AND women on how to resolve (political) matters that required collective opinions. She could not read Arabic so she had no idea the language used in that verse was plural, addressing women too. She saw women were taking the oath of allegiance for the first time in history without a guardian, but alleged it was discriminatory since men didn't have to. Of course men took this oath regularly before, so it was less noteworthy. Still, it was mentioned men did when the Quran talked about the treaty under the tree. She didn't know about this verse either and she had no idea about the historical context, otherwise she would not have made the accusation that the oath was discriminatory. Then she saw where the Prophet asked about converting womens illegitimate children and alleged it discriminated women because the same questioning did not exist for men. There was no way to identify a man's illegitimate child since fornication and adultery were not uncommon. A man could not be held financially responsible for children without evidence he fathered them. If a woman admitted her children were illegitimate, however, the State would provide for them. The poster spun this into a discrimination argument because she did not understand islamic history.

So, its not that we refused to acknowledge her superior understanding of Islam, it is simply that there were some gaps, critical ones, in her understanding that contributed to her misjudgments.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to hijack this threads topic. Last I am saying about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was one poster who had some knowledge in the way of scholars and some islamic historical context. I already acknowledged this but also said a little knowledge is dangerous. It can give a person a false sense of security and prevent them from seeking additional knowledge. Such was the case with that poster. This is why she was was completely befuddled when the other Muslim poster said women had equality in Islam. She did not think about the equality in terms of the value of rights, she thought of equality in strictly linear terms, the way a self taught westerner would think. She had no idea about sura Ash Shurra and the verse that addressed men AND women on how to resolve (political) matters that required collective opinions. She could not read Arabic so she had no idea the language used in that verse was plural, addressing women too. She saw women were taking the oath of allegiance for the first time in history without a guardian, but alleged it was discriminatory since men didn't have to. Of course men took this oath regularly before, so it was less noteworthy. Still, it was mentioned men did when the Quran talked about the treaty under the tree. She didn't know about this verse either and she had no idea about the historical context, otherwise she would not have made the accusation that the oath was discriminatory. Then she saw where the Prophet asked about converting womens illegitimate children and alleged it discriminated women because the same questioning did not exist for men. There was no way to identify a man's illegitimate child since fornication and adultery were not uncommon. A man could not be held financially responsible for children without evidence he fathered them. If a woman admitted her children were illegitimate, however, the State would provide for them. The poster spun this into a discrimination argument because she did not understand islamic history.

So, its not that we refused to acknowledge her superior understanding of Islam, it is simply that there were some gaps, critical ones, in her understanding that contributed to her misjudgments.

I'm not the poster you're castigating and perhaps I should let her speak for herself. I do, however, find your repeated attempts to recast old arguments to be dishonest and frustrating.

1. The other Muslim poster got in trouble because she made an unqualified statement that "women have equality in Islam," to a western DCUM readership she knew very, very well would understand this differently from what she meant. That was equivalent to lying, frankly. (FWIW, this sort of statement has been an ongoing problem for both of you, for example, when you say "Muslims treat their women captives well" but you actually mean just about the opposite to your Western DCUM readership, see below.) We all agree on the legal facts: women in Islam have extremely unequal divorce rights, they inherit 1/2 of what their brothers inherit, and their testimony is worth 1/2 of a man's testimony in financial courts. Accusing DCUM readers of "misunderstanding this" along what you casually and inaccurately write off as "strictly linear terms" is extremely dishonest on your part.
2. I don't remember all the details of the women's purity pledge, but I do remember you both were asked multiple times for proof that men faced a similar purity test. As I recall, women were required to pledge their purity going forward in their lives in Mohammed's community. This had nothing, zip, zilch to do, despite your claims above, with supporting illegitimate children who were conceived in the past. It was a promise not to fornicate or conceive illegitimate children in the future. And women had to make this purity pledge, but men didn't.

You have attempted to spin so many discussions that it's becoming offensive. Shall we revisit the conversion vs. immigration discussion? Shall we revisit your claims that "Muslims treat non-Muslim women captives well" when you actually mean "Muslim soldiers can make slaves out of non-Muslim women captives, Muslim men 'meet the sexual needs' (your words, when pressed) of non-Muslim women captives by having sex with them, and a non-muslim woman will be freed from slavery if she becomes pregnant (oops, you were wrong, she is freed when her Muslim slave master dies).

[Anonymous]

^^^
P.S. I assume I'll find myself on your micro-aggression page now. Go for it. Just quote me faithfully, specifically, the places where I wrote out actual Islamic laws in full. I assume there's no disagreement over these laws.

You have been told many times that if you make statements that seemed designed to mislead your western DCUM readership, then this will lead to dozens of pages clarifying the actual laws you seem reluctant to describe. You have also been told that if you instead say something like, "Muslim are valued equally, but we interpret 'equality' differently from you, and here are the actual laws... and here's why they work for me" then nobody could possibly challenge that. Nobody will have to drag the laws out of you or post them themselves, and nobody can possibly challenge your personal interpretation of these laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^
P.S. I assume I'll find myself on your micro-aggression page now. Go for it. Just quote me faithfully, specifically, the places where I wrote out actual Islamic laws in full. I assume there's no disagreement over these laws.

You have been told many times that if you make statements that seemed designed to mislead your western DCUM readership, then this will lead to dozens of pages clarifying the actual laws you seem reluctant to describe. You have also been told that if you instead say something like, "Muslim are valued equally, but we interpret 'equality' differently from you, and here are the actual laws... and here's why they work for me" then nobody could possibly challenge that. Nobody will have to drag the laws out of you or post them themselves, and nobody can possibly challenge your personal interpretation of these laws.

An easier, quicker way of handling this would be to copy and re-insert those passages on any additional thread or to just copy and paste the link to that discussion along with the times of the posts. This saves time, shows that the offender is repeating the same arguments and might even dissuade them, if part of their motive just to keep people here focused on Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Anglican Bishop Spong question the divinity of Christ? Just goes to show that you can let your search for the historical Jesus take you where it will, and still conclude that Christianity is the best religion for you (and still do quite well in the Anglican Church).

The Anglican church itself is losing people in droves.

[Anonymous]

If you don't believe Jesus is Christ/divine, what's so special about Christianity then? Jesus did not say/do anything particularly new; other prophets and religious leaders have said pretty much the sane things about morality/ way to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't believe Jesus is Christ/divine, what's so special about Christianity then? Jesus did not say/do anything particularly new; other prophets and religious leaders have said pretty much the sane things about morality/ way to live.

Actually, Jesus did bring a lot of new things. He got rid of the old eye-for-eye justice, he got rid of dietary restrictions, and he told people to love their neighbors. The closest equivalent is probably Buddhism. Christianity is, however, pretty different from Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^
P.S. I assume I'll find myself on your micro-aggression page now. Go for it. Just quote me faithfully, specifically, the places where I wrote out actual Islamic laws in full. I assume there's no disagreement over these laws.

You have been told many times that if you make statements that seemed designed to mislead your western DCUM readership, then this will lead to dozens of pages clarifying the actual laws you seem reluctant to describe. You have also been told that if you instead say something like, "Muslim are valued equally, but we interpret 'equality' differently from you, and here are the actual laws... and here's why they work for me" then nobody could possibly challenge that. Nobody will have to drag the laws out of you or post them themselves, and nobody can possibly challenge your personal interpretation of these laws.

An easier, quicker way of handling this would be to copy and re-insert those passages on any additional thread or to just copy and paste the link to that discussion along with the times of the posts. This saves time, shows that the offender is repeating the same arguments and might even dissuade them, if part of their motive just to keep people here focused on Islam.

Problem is, most of those discussions spanned 20 pages, and it's hard to cut and paste that. There's a nice recap, however, by the PP the Muslim poster just called "befuddled", so maybe I'll start posting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't believe Jesus is Christ/divine, what's so special about Christianity then? Jesus did not say/do anything particularly new; other prophets and religious leaders have said pretty much the sane things about morality/ way to live.

what's special is that it has been so successful. Christianity has had centuries of growth and riches.

That is changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't believe Jesus is Christ/divine, what's so special about Christianity then? Jesus did not say/do anything particularly new; other prophets and religious leaders have said pretty much the sane things about morality/ way to live.

what's special is that it has been so successful. Christianity has had centuries of growth and riches.

That is changing.

I think the message is very relevant for today. On the other hand, I'm really happy with Christianity getting out of government, because it never should have been there in the first place.