Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[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.

Or you could all go back to that thread and re-hash things where you actually have the material to cite from, rather than hijacking this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read many of the apocryphal gospels, including Thomas. Some bring new perspectives and others seem, honestly, a little silly. Besides Thomas, there are gospels of Judas, Mary, and other early narratives. One in particular gives the birth narrative in the details Christians are familiar with, but which don't appear in quite such detail in the canonical gospels.

Yes, of course there have been longstanding debates, going back to the first days of Christianity, about the nature of Christ's divinity, the role of women like Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' vision of heaven. However, you can see these debates in the canonical gospels. There are some theologians (Crossan and Borg, among others) who do credible research on these gospels, and others (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) who are clearly out to make a buck.

Yes, we're all "God's children." This is not news, it's always been a part of Christianity

No, reading the apocryphal gospels has not shaken my faith.

+1 My favorite class in my Catholic school was the on history of the bible, which went into all of this, including the attempts to identify the actual writers based on linguistic analysis, style, etc, etc. Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read many of the apocryphal gospels, including Thomas. Some bring new perspectives and others seem, honestly, a little silly. Besides Thomas, there are gospels of Judas, Mary, and other early narratives. One in particular gives the birth narrative in the details Christians are familiar with, but which don't appear in quite such detail in the canonical gospels.

Yes, of course there have been longstanding debates, going back to the first days of Christianity, about the nature of Christ's divinity, the role of women like Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' vision of heaven. However, you can see these debates in the canonical gospels. There are some theologians (Crossan and Borg, among others) who do credible research on these gospels, and others (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) who are clearly out to make a buck.

Yes, we're all "God's children." This is not news, it's always been a part of Christianity

No, reading the apocryphal gospels has not shaken my faith.

+1 My favorite class in my Catholic school was the on history of the bible, which went into all of this, including the attempts to identify the actual writers based on linguistic analysis, style, etc, etc. Fascinating.

And after that, was your faith still unshaken? If so, must have been some teacher!

[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.

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.

Oh, I agree that Christianity is different from Islam. My point was that the moral code preached by Jesus is not that unique. Not enough to justify being a Christian IMO. The essence if Christianity is the notion that no one can ever be good enough for God, that no one can actually follow that moral code in its fullness *, the idea of intrinsic 'sinfulness' and 'brokenness' of human kind, and the need for atonement through Christ.
* particularly insightful, the idea that even when you are 'good', if you think you are 'good enough', then you've already sinned because of pride. Really no way out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh, I agree that Christianity is different from Islam. My point was that the moral code preached by Jesus is not that unique. Not enough to justify being a Christian IMO. The essence if Christianity is the notion that no one can ever be good enough for God, that no one can actually follow that moral code in its fullness *, the idea of intrinsic 'sinfulness' and 'brokenness' of human kind, and the need for atonement through Christ.
* particularly insightful, the idea that even when you are 'good', if you think you are 'good enough', then you've already sinned because of pride. Really no way out!

No, that's not the "essence" of Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read many of the apocryphal gospels, including Thomas. Some bring new perspectives and others seem, honestly, a little silly. Besides Thomas, there are gospels of Judas, Mary, and other early narratives. One in particular gives the birth narrative in the details Christians are familiar with, but which don't appear in quite such detail in the canonical gospels.

Yes, of course there have been longstanding debates, going back to the first days of Christianity, about the nature of Christ's divinity, the role of women like Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' vision of heaven. However, you can see these debates in the canonical gospels. There are some theologians (Crossan and Borg, among others) who do credible research on these gospels, and others (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) who are clearly out to make a buck.

Yes, we're all "God's children." This is not news, it's always been a part of Christianity

No, reading the apocryphal gospels has not shaken my faith.

+1 My favorite class in my Catholic school was the on history of the bible, which went into all of this, including the attempts to identify the actual writers based on linguistic analysis, style, etc, etc. Fascinating.

And after that, was your faith still unshaken? If so, must have been some teacher!

If Jesus' *message* were different from gospel to gospel, that might shake somebody's faith. Instead, the message is pretty consistent.

Now since everybody accepts that the gospels were written some years after Jesus' death, theories such as the theory about a "Q gospel" that is the source for some of the extant gospels are actually faith-affirming. These linquistic and historical analyses actually establish a traceable pedigree, if you will, for the existing gospels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read many of the apocryphal gospels, including Thomas. Some bring new perspectives and others seem, honestly, a little silly. Besides Thomas, there are gospels of Judas, Mary, and other early narratives. One in particular gives the birth narrative in the details Christians are familiar with, but which don't appear in quite such detail in the canonical gospels.

Yes, of course there have been longstanding debates, going back to the first days of Christianity, about the nature of Christ's divinity, the role of women like Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' vision of heaven. However, you can see these debates in the canonical gospels. There are some theologians (Crossan and Borg, among others) who do credible research on these gospels, and others (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) who are clearly out to make a buck.

Yes, we're all "God's children." This is not news, it's always been a part of Christianity

No, reading the apocryphal gospels has not shaken my faith.

+1 My favorite class in my Catholic school was the on history of the bible, which went into all of this, including the attempts to identify the actual writers based on linguistic analysis, style, etc, etc. Fascinating.

And after that, was your faith still unshaken? If so, must have been some teacher!

If Jesus' *message* were different from gospel to gospel, that might shake somebody's faith. Instead, the message is pretty consistent.

Now since everybody accepts that the gospels were written some years after Jesus' death, theories such as the theory about a "Q gospel" that is the source for some of the extant gospels are actually faith-affirming. These linquistic and historical analyses actually establish a traceable pedigree, if you will, for the existing gospels.

Especially the way it's taught in religious schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read many of the apocryphal gospels, including Thomas. Some bring new perspectives and others seem, honestly, a little silly. Besides Thomas, there are gospels of Judas, Mary, and other early narratives. One in particular gives the birth narrative in the details Christians are familiar with, but which don't appear in quite such detail in the canonical gospels.

Yes, of course there have been longstanding debates, going back to the first days of Christianity, about the nature of Christ's divinity, the role of women like Mary Magdalene, and Jesus' vision of heaven. However, you can see these debates in the canonical gospels. There are some theologians (Crossan and Borg, among others) who do credible research on these gospels, and others (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) who are clearly out to make a buck.

Yes, we're all "God's children." This is not news, it's always been a part of Christianity

No, reading the apocryphal gospels has not shaken my faith.

+1 My favorite class in my Catholic school was the on history of the bible, which went into all of this, including the attempts to identify the actual writers based on linguistic analysis, style, etc, etc. Fascinating.

And after that, was your faith still unshaken? If so, must have been some teacher!

If Jesus' *message* were different from gospel to gospel, that might shake somebody's faith. Instead, the message is pretty consistent.

Now since everybody accepts that the gospels were written some years after Jesus' death, theories such as the theory about a "Q gospel" that is the source for some of the extant gospels are actually faith-affirming. These linquistic and historical analyses actually establish a traceable pedigree, if you will, for the existing gospels.

Especially the way it's taught in religious schools.

Well, clearly you want to dismiss it the idea that there's history, and not just fiction writing, behind the gospels. The fact remains, however, that the existence of historical reason(s) for why the gospels are similar is indeed faith affirming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly you want to dismiss it the idea that there's history, and not just fiction writing, behind the gospels. The fact remains, however, that the existence of historical reason(s) for why the gospels are similar is indeed faith affirming.

So your claiming if a story is similarly told by multiple writings that makes the subject of the story non fiction? Do you hold that belief for all stories? Because there are many stories that are historically similar and still fiction. Greek Gods, Santa, Romeo and Juliet, Batman, ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly you want to dismiss it the idea that there's history, and not just fiction writing, behind the gospels. The fact remains, however, that the existence of historical reason(s) for why the gospels are similar is indeed faith affirming.

So your claiming if a story is similarly told by multiple writings that makes the subject of the story non fiction? Do you hold that belief for all stories? Because there are many stories that are historically similar and still fiction. Greek Gods, Santa, Romeo and Juliet, Batman, ...

Whatevs. You can't argue with someone who insists on missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If what you say is true, it would mean men could fornicate and commit adultery left and right, to their hearts desire, even right in front of the Prophet if they chose to do so, because according to you, men never had to make a purity pledge. Yet the Quran clearly prescribes a universal punishment of flogging for ALL fornicators and adulterers, indicating it was prohibited to both men and women. So this shows that the oath women took was likely not a purity pledge for women only. It was to ensure they were really muslims and for admission to the prophets tribe. The question of illegitimate children was to prevent women from unfairly putting a financial burden on their lawful husband when he might not have been the father of her children. In Islam, the State supports illegitimate children.

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]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a muslim woman who practices, i can tell you that we live Islam so deeply in our lives that it is inconceivable that people don't get the "equality" in Islam. It takes a bit of stepping back to remember that westerners think of equality between men and women ina very linear way. For every right a man gets, the typical westerner thinks the woman must get an identical right in order for there to be equality. But Islam sees men and women as different so their rights takes their differences into account. Inheritance laws would indeed be unfair if women got less inheritance yet had the burden of the same expenses as a man. But in Islam, the woman doesn't have the burden of supporting herself, so in light of this, our inheritance laws make sense to us. So to us, there is fairness and justice and equality because the value of the rights and responsibilities balance out. I get that this system is in stark contrast to your linear idea of equality, but why does your definition of equality prevail here? Equality can be expressed interms of fairness, justice, and balance too. Its not that we were lying but we forget that westerners only accept their western notion of equality.
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]

Anonymous wrote:
As a muslim woman who practices, i can tell you that we live Islam so deeply in our lives that it is inconceivable that people don't get the "equality" in Islam. It takes a bit of stepping back to remember that westerners think of equality between men and women ina very linear way. For every right a man gets, the typical westerner thinks the woman must get an identical right in order for there to be equality. But Islam sees men and women as different so their rights takes their differences into account. Inheritance laws would indeed be unfair if women got less inheritance yet had the burden of the same expenses as a man. But in Islam, the woman doesn't have the burden of supporting herself, so in light of this, our inheritance laws make sense to us. So to us, there is fairness and justice and equality because the value of the rights and responsibilities balance out. I get that this system is in stark contrast to your linear idea of equality, but why does your definition of equality prevail here? Equality can be expressed interms of fairness, justice, and balance too. Its not that we were lying but we forget that westerners only accept their western notion of equality.

So. You admit that you used the word "equality" despite your awareness that it would be interpreted differently by your western readers. It's no use complaining, after the fact, that western definitions "prevail" because it doesn't make sense to expect this in a forum that consists of westerners who have never been exposed to your Islamic concept of women's equality.

Here's how it works.
1. Say something you hope will be palatable to western ears. "Women are equal in Islam."
2. Cross your fingers and hope that nobody knows anything about Islamic law.
3. When somebody does cite Islamic rules about unequal divorce rights, marital property rights, inheritance rights, value of testimony -- argue that you meant something else by "equality."
4. The discussion will always come to a point of fundamental disagreement over (a) the meaning of "equality" for women, or (b) whether legal inequality for women is acceptable or desirable, or both. At that point, call your opponents
- befuddled (like you did above when referring to your nemesis)
- cultural imperialists for not knowing that Muslims mean "women's equality" differently from the way westerners have always understood it, or
- Christian-evangelical-crusading-islamophobe grannies in miniskits with STDs and druggie kids (you said these things too many times to count).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or you could all go back to that thread and re-hash things where you actually have the material to cite from, rather than hijacking this thread.

I am the Muslim. All I did was respond to this threads subject in one comment and was suddenly accused by someone of proselytizing. Muslims should be free to speak about their religion, speak favorably about their religion, and also c

[Anonymous]

And also compare/contrast religions without people assigning sinister motives to them.