Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 01-05-2012, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsonic

Quote:

that caused so much difficulty that millions of people subsequently died on its account?

the muslims say , " if only they had accepted our version"

"If only they had accepted our version, we wouldn't have had to slaughter them"?

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 12:31 PM

http://www.answeringislam.org/Shamou...s_apostles.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Some interpretations of 36:14 indicate that the three messengers were Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Someir thought it referred to Shamun, Yohanna and Bulus, with the city in question being Antioch.

Where are these interpretations? Please give a cite.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

To spell things out for you: Theology is meaningless.

Is it meaningless to say that penal substitutionary atonement is the purpose of deity for the salvation of the souls of men?

That looks like complete gibberish to someone who doesn't believe in souls, salvation, atonement, etc.

Quote:

Did the author(s) of the Qur'an think it meaningless, or is the Qur'an an attempt, by man or deity, to counter that notion, that caused so much difficulty that millions of people subsequently died on its account?

The Qur'an is of the same literary genre. I think that people died for territory or wealth.

sotto voce · 01-05-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Is it meaningless to say that penal substitutionary atonement is the purpose of deity for the salvation of the souls of men?

That looks like complete gibberish to someone who doesn't believe in souls, salvation, atonement, etc.

Untrue.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That looks like complete gibberish to someone who doesn't believe in souls, salvation, atonement, etc.

Untrue.

How would you know? You appear to believe in all that woo woo stuff.

sotto voce · 01-05-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Untrue.

How would you know?

How would anyone know? One can understand perfectly well what one considers utter and complete fabrication. Professional people have to do that every day.

Theology is not meaningless, for anyone. It may be mistaken, or purposely evil, but it is never without meaning. And it always affects behaviour.

Toto · 01-05-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How would you know?

How would anyone know? One can understand perfectly well what one considers utter and complete fabrication. Professional people have to do that every day.

Theology is not meaningless, for anyone. It may be mistaken, or purposely evil, but it is never without meaning. And it always affects behaviour.

So when the Eastern and Western branches of the so called Christian churches split up over the filioque clause, in the Great Schism of 1054, you think that there was a real issue there, or that the theology masked some real issue?

When people describe disputes as "theological" what do you think they mean? Usually that the dispute is over some gibberish that doesn't make sense.

sotto voce · 01-05-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

How would anyone know? One can understand perfectly well what one considers utter and complete fabrication. Professional people have to do that every day.

Theology is not meaningless, for anyone. It may be mistaken, or purposely evil, but it is never without meaning. And it always affects behaviour.

So when the Eastern and Western branches of the so called Christian churches split up over the filioque clause, in the Great Schism of 1054, you think that there was a real issue there, or that the theology masked some real issue?

This was ostensibly an issue provoked by theology, but it hardly justified a deep and permanent split- which it did not, at first. The issue was due to what both sides imv knew was an absurdity, trinitarianism, one that could have been cleared up without much problem.

The real issue imv was the growing economic strength of Western Europe, and the resulting Renaissance which posed a highly significant problem for the Vatican. Rome increasingly had to deal with that pro-actively, and it also wanted a large share of the new wealth. The poor cousins had to go because new canons had to be made to suit the Western situation.

But this was an atypical spat. Theology is usually based on 'higher' principles.

Quote:

When people describe disputes as "theological" what do you think they mean? Usually that the dispute is over some gibberish that doesn't make sense.

Usually, theology in the Western world boils down to a choice between orthodoxy (small 'o'), legalism or liberalism. Even though among a minority, these are very live issues, and are never without meaning, because they affect the way people actually conduct themselves in all manner of transactions and relationships. There are disputes in, say, India, that Indians get extremely concerned by, though Westerners may think them abstruse and unimportant, each argument being 'as broad as it's long'. And probably vice versa, for the Indians about the West. But never gibberish.

BH · 01-05-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's a good point, though when it comes to condemnation, I suppose the Quran could have thrown in something about Paul or his ideas of the risen Christ salvation, i.e. "Woe to him who thinks that any salvation comes from anywhere other than Allah himself." "Woe to the Christians who were misled by Baulus...."

Muslim attitudes toward Paul would be a worthwhile field of inquiry. I'm sure that they would tend to see him as a great apostle, but would regret that he got too close to the pagans with his theomorphizing.

Don't think much of him at all.

mopc · 01-06-2012, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Quran seems to me to be eight or nine different documents cut up by an illiterate man and copied to fit inside a codex.
The references to Hebrew and Christian text seem to be incoherent. They seem to be from a simple-minded man who knows nothing of either religion but had listened to some debates and then ordered a scribe to write whatever little bits he remembered of the debates.

It seems to me that the author had never read any Christian or Hebrew Scriptures. Its like the new convert who hasn't read the Bible, but makes up all kinds of crazy story connections based on his remembering what preachers have said in order to prove some point he doesn't understand.

Also it may be compared to the scene in the Ingmar Bergman film "Inn of Sixth Happiness" where the servant Yang starts to tell stories from the bible to Chinese travelers. He finds they're totally uninterested in them when he relates them as written, but when he mixes them up (Jesus with Noah's Arc, for example) and puts in Chinese morals, they start to pay attention.

You mean Ingrid Bergman

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.