Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talking about yourself, right? I can see how information about how the gospels were written being taught in a religious setting might be "faith affirming" for some because the people taking the course are already faithful and the person teaching is there to protect the faith as much if not more than to teach academic material. Teaching it with the approved Catholic spin would be preferable to letting people learn about it out on their own, in an objective way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's not quite right. You also brought up the issues of women's equality and voting rights, which nobody on the thread had mentioned before you did, in your post of 10/25 00:06. Because you brought these up as part of one of your numerous spins of past arguments, other posters understandably responded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The Quran has numerous examples of different rights afforded to men versus women. So why would muslims feel the need to twist its interpretation to make it palatable to nonmuslims? It is what it is . To us, its a thoughtful and just system that takes into consideration the inherent differences between men and women. As a muslim woman, I have never felt oppressed. Muslim women do not perceive inequality in our system at all. If men have greater rights in one area but also greater responsibilities and expenses, to us it balances itself out resulting in a very equitable system. To us, its a bit misleading to describe that system as unequal because you failed to mention men have more expenses and financial responsibilities. Sorry if you felt we intentionally lied to you. We didn't and we have no desire to proselytize here. We just find it misleading to paint our belief system as oppressive or unequal. But I think you will be hard pressed to find any muslim women that will use the term inequality when she feels she is living in an equitable system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's not quite right. You also brought up the issues of women's equality and voting rights, which nobody on the thread had mentioned before you did, in your post of 10/25 00:06. Because you brought these up as part of one of your numerous spins of past arguments, other posters understandably responded.

Where is post 00:06 in this thread?????? Did you mean 00:16???

Look at what I was accused of in 11:45 first. I was first accused of proselytizing. Then another poster accused muslims of lying. I didn't just start posting about voting rights out of the blue. It was preceded with unfair accusations. Naturally Im going to defend Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where is post 00:06 in this thread?????? Did you mean 00:16???

Look at what I was accused of in 11:45 first. I was first accused of proselytizing. Then another poster accused muslims of lying. I didn't just start posting about voting rights out of the blue. It was preceded with unfair accusations. Naturally Im going to defend Islam.

Yes, post 00:16 on page three of this thread. Nobody accused Muslims in general of lying. It was suggested, however, that you yourself have a very selective memory.

And yes, on this thread, you did start posting about voting rights "out of the blue." Nobody mentioned it here until you brought it up. Unless you can explain how the accusations about proselytizing necessitated a response that involved voting rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The Quran has numerous examples of different rights afforded to men versus women. So why would muslims feel the need to twist its interpretation to make it palatable to nonmuslims? It is what it is . To us, its a thoughtful and just system that takes into consideration the inherent differences between men and women. As a muslim woman, I have never felt oppressed. Muslim women do not perceive inequality in our system at all. If men have greater rights in one area but also greater responsibilities and expenses, to us it balances itself out resulting in a very equitable system. To us, its a bit misleading to describe that system as unequal because you failed to mention men have more expenses and financial responsibilities. Sorry if you felt we intentionally lied to you. We didn't and we have no desire to proselytize here. We just find it misleading to paint our belief system as oppressive or unequal. But I think you will be hard pressed to find any muslim women that will use the term inequality when she feels she is living in an equitable system.

I'm sure you're very sincere in your understanding of Islamic rules for women being equal. I'm equally certain you're sincere when you say you don't feel oppressed (although I have to point out that you live in the US and not under sharia law).

But this makes the question even more germane: why on earth did you call it "equality" to an audience who--as you've admitted you are fully aware--understand "equality" to mean something very different. That's what sounds like you're twisting things around.

[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.

But if the gospel of Thomas says Jesus is not God, yet everywhere we turn Christianity believe Jesus is God, how is that disconcerting for Christians? Isn't the identity of Jesus or God important to people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Quran has numerous examples of different rights afforded to men versus women. So why would muslims feel the need to twist its interpretation to make it palatable to nonmuslims? It is what it is . To us, its a thoughtful and just system that takes into consideration the inherent differences between men and women. As a muslim woman, I have never felt oppressed. Muslim women do not perceive inequality in our system at all. If men have greater rights in one area but also greater responsibilities and expenses, to us it balances itself out resulting in a very equitable system. To us, its a bit misleading to describe that system as unequal because you failed to mention men have more expenses and financial responsibilities. Sorry if you felt we intentionally lied to you. We didn't and we have no desire to proselytize here. We just find it misleading to paint our belief system as oppressive or unequal. But I think you will be hard pressed to find any muslim women that will use the term inequality when she feels she is living in an equitable system.

I'm sure you're very sincere in your understanding of Islamic rules for women being equal. I'm equally certain you're sincere when you say you don't feel oppressed (although I have to point out that you live in the US and not under sharia law).

But this makes the question even more germane: why on earth did you call it "equality" to an audience who--as you've admitted you are fully aware--understand "equality" to mean something very different. That's what sounds like you're twisting things around.

What I mean is, if you're proud of Islamic rules about women, and I'm sure you're sincere in this -- then why keep describing them in a way that gives the appearance of misrepresenting them? Why describe them in a way that you know, as you've said you know, will be misinterpreted by DCUM readers?

Also, why do you never bring up the actual laws yourself? Instead other posters need 20 pages to drag them out of you.

Why not just say, "In Islam, equality means something different. Yes, the rules about inheritance, divorce, testimony... are different for women, and here's how.... But we don't think this difference is bad because the legal rights are offset by commensurately different responsibilities for men and women." If you said that, nobody would need to drag you through 20 pages to find out what the legal rights are. Nobody would need to engage in debates about whether or not we should all have understood the Muslim meaning of the word "equality" whenever you use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But if the gospel of Thomas says Jesus is not God, yet everywhere we turn Christianity believe Jesus is God, how is that disconcerting for Christians? Isn't the identity of Jesus or God important to people?

See the first 1-2 pages of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where is post 00:06 in this thread?????? Did you mean 00:16???

Look at what I was accused of in 11:45 first. I was first accused of proselytizing. Then another poster accused muslims of lying. I didn't just start posting about voting rights out of the blue. It was preceded with unfair accusations. Naturally Im going to defend Islam.

Yes, post 00:16 on page three of this thread. Nobody accused Muslims in general of lying. It was suggested, however, that you yourself have a very selective memory.

And yes, on this thread, you did start posting about voting rights "out of the blue." Nobody mentioned it here until you brought it up. Unless you can explain how the accusations about proselytizing necessitated a response that involved voting rights.

- I posted that Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Jesus and so my faith in Islam is affirmed by the archeological finding of Thomas.
- Suddenly I was accused of proselytizing.
- I asked why I am not permitted to speak without being assigned sinister motives.
- Then another poster said we muslims did not acknowledge the islamophobe's superior knowledge and if we had done that, all would have been well.
- I replied and said she had some knowledge but huge holes in her understanding the way a self taught westerner might have. The confusion about voting rights was cited by me as an example.

Muslims must be able to post favorable comments about their religion the way Christians post favorably about their religion, without accusations of proselytizing.

Muslims must be permitted to compare and contrast religions without accusations of proselytizing.

If you don't permit Muslims to do what Christians do here on DCUM every day, it is islamophobic behavior.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't Thomas the one who the risen Jesus allowed to put his hand into his wounds and stated "My lord and my God."?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where is post 00:06 in this thread?????? Did you mean 00:16???

Look at what I was accused of in 11:45 first. I was first accused of proselytizing. Then another poster accused muslims of lying. I didn't just start posting about voting rights out of the blue. It was preceded with unfair accusations. Naturally Im going to defend Islam.

Yes, post 00:16 on page three of this thread. Nobody accused Muslims in general of lying. It was suggested, however, that you yourself have a very selective memory.

And yes, on this thread, you did start posting about voting rights "out of the blue." Nobody mentioned it here until you brought it up. Unless you can explain how the accusations about proselytizing necessitated a response that involved voting rights.

- I posted that Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Jesus and so my faith in Islam is affirmed by the archeological finding of Thomas.
- Suddenly I was accused of proselytizing.
- I asked why I am not permitted to speak without being assigned sinister motives.
- Then another poster said we muslims did not acknowledge the islamophobe's superior knowledge and if we had done that, all would have been well.
- I replied and said she had some knowledge but huge holes in her understanding the way a self taught westerner might have. The confusion about voting rights was cited by me as an example.

Muslims must be able to post favorable comments about their religion the way Christians post favorably about their religion, without accusations of proselytizing.

Muslims must be permitted to compare and contrast religions without accusations of proselytizing.

If you don't permit Muslims to do what Christians do here on DCUM every day, it is islamophobic behavior.

- People are accusing you of these things. They aren't accusing Muslims in general.

- Nobody ever told you to acknowledge the superior knowledge of the person you're calling an islamophobe. That wasn't my post. But that poster said that you greatly underestimated your audience's knowledge. Period. Here's her post from 10/24/2014 17:22 , in full:

Anonymous wrote: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.

- There was no need for you to bring up women's equality or women's voting rights.

[Anonymous]

In sum:

Disagreeing about Islam =/= Islamophobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Quran has numerous examples of different rights afforded to men versus women. So why would muslims feel the need to twist its interpretation to make it palatable to nonmuslims? It is what it is . To us, its a thoughtful and just system that takes into consideration the inherent differences between men and women. As a muslim woman, I have never felt oppressed. Muslim women do not perceive inequality in our system at all. If men have greater rights in one area but also greater responsibilities and expenses, to us it balances itself out resulting in a very equitable system. To us, its a bit misleading to describe that system as unequal because you failed to mention men have more expenses and financial responsibilities. Sorry if you felt we intentionally lied to you. We didn't and we have no desire to proselytize here. We just find it misleading to paint our belief system as oppressive or unequal. But I think you will be hard pressed to find any muslim women that will use the term inequality when she feels she is living in an equitable system.

I'm sure you're very sincere in your understanding of Islamic rules for women being equal. I'm equally certain you're sincere when you say you don't feel oppressed (although I have to point out that you live in the US and not under sharia law).

But this makes the question even more germane: why on earth did you call it "equality" to an audience who--as you've admitted you are fully aware--understand "equality" to mean something very different. That's what sounds like you're twisting things around.

What I mean is, if you're proud of Islamic rules about women, and I'm sure you're sincere in this -- then why keep describing them in a way that gives the appearance of misrepresenting them? Why describe them in a way that you know, as you've said you know, will be misinterpreted by DCUM readers?

Also, why do you never bring up the actual laws yourself? Instead other posters need 20 pages to drag them out of you.

Why not just say, "In Islam, equality means something different. Yes, the rules about inheritance, divorce, testimony... are different for women, and here's how.... But we don't think this difference is bad because the legal rights are offset by commensurately different responsibilities for men and women." If you said that, nobody would need to drag you through 20 pages to find out what the legal rights are. Nobody would need to engage in debates about whether or not we should all have understood the Muslim meaning of the word "equality" whenever you use it.

I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I mean is, if you're proud of Islamic rules about women, and I'm sure you're sincere in this -- then why keep describing them in a way that gives the appearance of misrepresenting them? Why describe them in a way that you know, as you've said you know, will be misinterpreted by DCUM readers?

Also, why do you never bring up the actual laws yourself? Instead other posters need 20 pages to drag them out of you.

Why not just say, "In Islam, equality means something different. Yes, the rules about inheritance, divorce, testimony... are different for women, and here's how.... But we don't think this difference is bad because the legal rights are offset by commensurately different responsibilities for men and women." If you said that, nobody would need to drag you through 20 pages to find out what the legal rights are. Nobody would need to engage in debates about whether or not we should all have understood the Muslim meaning of the word "equality" whenever you use it.

I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Golly I'm sick of these spins. Here's exactly what you said at 00:16:

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.

In other words, you and Muslima put the burden squarely on your readers to understand what "women's equality" means in Islam. You even accused them of "befuddlement" for relying on their own, western, version of equality that you like to call "linear." Then, you moved straight into the question of whether men had to take a purity pledge if it wasn't spelled out, like it is for women, in the Quran.

Two sentences on "equality" where again you didn't address divorce or other rights. Then a dozen sentences on your disagreement with that poster about (a) whether an oath of purity is the same as voting, and (b) whether men have to take the purity pledge if the Quran mentioned it for men but not for women. Again, this is a disagreement, not islamophobia in her part.