Question for the religious extremists (Jay etc)

[AlgyTaylor]

A. Children generally believe everything they hear.
B. People believe what they believed when they were children.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. Generally what you're told as a child you take as the gospel truth (hehe), so with a few exceptions people keep whatever religion they start off with. Children who are taught to think for themselves will, by and large, weigh up all of the possible ones then decide based on that. Obviously by Pascal's Wager most people are either agnostic or atheist. Not obvious? Well, there's 7 major religions, you pick one - IF there's a god then there's a 5 in 7 chance you've pissed them off more by picking the wrong one than by choosing none. And, if the Bible is to be believed - or the Koran for that matter - then Yehwah is a total cunt who'll do some vengeful shit on your arse.

[AlgyTaylor]

[Napoleon Ier]

Excesses exist justified by religion. However, you cannot condemn a religion based on its implementation, only its principles. The Pope condemns, as Lewis did, the dictatorship of moral relativism.

[DaGip]

They're not the same - Jesus isn't the son of God in Islam, which is a pretty big difference IMO.

Actually, Mohamed isn't considered the son of God. He is considered to be God's One True Prophet(tm) who was tasked with bringing the church back to its roots.

If you actually read the Koran, you'll see that it says that Isa (Arabic translation of Jesus) is the son of God and the Messiah.

What I have heard is that Jesus' name was Isa in Arabic, Eashoa in Aramaic, and Esau in Hebrew. The name Esau is disputed, and most people use the name Yeshua instead.

I believe this to be the Islamic scholars point of view.

Also, according to Islamic scholars and some theology scholars, the name JESUS was documented as YESHU which is an acronym for Yemach Shmo u'Zikro (may his name be blotted out). So the name JESUS maybe apparently a mistranslation, as the Hebrew record was prejudice against this revolutionary and would use this acronym instead of his real name. Scholars at the time apparently mistook the word YESHU for YESHUA or JOSHUA.

I believe the Arabic name to be the closest record to Jesus' real name.

And in answer to the first question in this thread:

If you were born of Islamic parents and brought up as a Muslim, would you still have the same beliefs in Jesus/God?

If I was born Muslim (which according to Islamic belief, we all are) and raised Muslim my belief in Jesus would be a bit different from the majority of Christian-centric belief systems (Jehovah's Witness is one Christian-centric belief system that believes Jesus was not a god).

Muslims believe that Isa (pbuh) was the son of Mariam (Mary) and this fact is noted over and over in the Quran. Joseph isn't even mentioned. Muslims believe that Allah (God) created Jesus in the womb of Mary without the need of a man. So Muslims believe wholeheartedly in the virgin birth. As Adam was created by God, so too was Jesus created by God. Adam is not considered a god, therefore Jesus should not be considered a god as well.

Muslims believe in "La Illaha Illa Allah, Muhammad Rasool Allah" which translates as: I believe in no god(s) except Allah, and I believe that Muhammad is Allah's messenger.

So, due to this belief in Allah being the only god worthy of worship, the Holy Trinity of Christianity is considered a pagan polytheistic belief and is shunned.

Also, Allah is never referred to as The Father, as Allah has no need for procreating. Allah but says BE and it is, to give a procreative reference as father or mother is blasphemy.

Jesus is considered a prophet of God just as Mohammad is considered a prophet of God. Both, and all prophets, are seen as men that Allah has chosen to give a message to humanity. That message came in many books throughout time, and the Quran is considerd the last book and therefore Muhammad is considered the last prophet (pbuh).

However, Jesus is considered the Messiah in Islam and Muslims believe that he will come again just like in Christianity. And like many Christians, Muslims believe that that time is soon aproaching.

In regards to the cruxifiction and the resurection, the Muslims believed that Jesus was not put on the cross, but an image of Jesus was placed on the cross. What that image was, no one knows exactly. Was it an efigy? Was it a body double? Did God fool the Romans and Jews by creating an image that they thought was the real Jesus? No one is for sure what the image reference positively meant, only that it was not Jesus that was crucified.

So if I was raised Muslim, I would not believe that Jesus was a god. But I would believe in some things as the Christians do, just in a different manner.

[AlgyTaylor]

Excesses exist justified by religion. However, you cannot condemn a religion based on its implementation, only its principles. The Pope condemns, as Lewis did, the dictatorship of moral relativism.

Um, OK.

Religion, any religion, says that you have to use faith rather than proof. Unquestioning obedience of religious figures, acceptance of what they say.

So in fact, yes, it IS the fault of moderate Islam, Christianity etc that you get extremists. Because if they hadnt implanted the idea that you should not question what you've been told in to the heads of the young, they surely to f*ck would not think half the rubbish that they do. eg that by killing yourself you somehow get 72 virgins tending to your needs ad infinitum.

[Snorri1234]

Excesses exist justified by religion. However, you cannot condemn a religion based on its implementation, only its principles. The Pope condemns, as Lewis did, the dictatorship of moral relativism.

The bonus associated with moral relativism is that people won't fly themselves into buildings to get 72 virgins. I see no reason to do it!

[DaGip]

Excesses exist justified by religion. However, you cannot condemn a religion based on its implementation, only its principles. The Pope condemns, as Lewis did, the dictatorship of moral relativism.

Um, OK.

Religion, any religion, says that you have to use faith rather than proof. Unquestioning obedience of religious figures, acceptance of what they say.

So in fact, yes, it IS the fault of moderate Islam, Christianity etc that you get extremists. Because if they hadnt implanted the idea that you should not question what you've been told in to the heads of the young, they surely to f*ck would not think half the rubbish that they do. eg that by killing yourself you somehow get 72 virgins tending to your needs ad infinitum.

You know what? I know very few people (actually the number is zero, that is strange) that actually practice religion. They are either athiest or agnostic. Personally I believe in a creative force that I have no problem calling God, would you rather me call it The Force? That is sooo cliche'...

My religion is JBLDM (Jehovah's Buddhists of Latter Day Muslims), but I don't come to your door. Matter of fact, I think I will make doors forbidden in my religion...

[Jenos Ridan]

They're not the same - Jesus isn't the son of God in Islam, which is a pretty big difference IMO.

Actually, Mohamed isn't considered the son of God. He is considered to be God's One True Prophet(tm) who was tasked with bringing the church back to its roots.

If you actually read the Koran, you'll see that it says that Isa (Arabic translation of Jesus) is the son of God and the Messiah.

Where?

Islam is not at all related to Christianity, I invoke a previous discussion here:

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity.

No, it didn't. If you've read the Koran you'd know that. Heck, if you knew who Mohammad was and what he did you'd know the difference.

Mohammad:

Orders the death of rivals by sycophantic followers

Marries the widow of a man he had executed, by same group of cultists noless, against her will I might add.

Marries the wife of his nephew, basically using the "It is the Holy thing to do" agrument, since he would know being the Prophet of Allah and all

Says to one group of followers one thing, returns to Mecca and says something else, then when group A shows up, he turns about-face again, claiming Shaitan (Satan) deceived him (the Satanic Verses, which are in the Koran).

Koran say a man may have up to but no more than four wifes. Mohammad violated this law, which he put in there!

Suffered from depression and suicidal tendices, even after he claimed to had seen "Allah" (who was covered so 'He' could not be seen. If Moses, who is proportedly a lesser prophet, like Jesus (Isa in the Koran), actually saw God in all of His manifest glory on Sinai, then why not Mohammed, if he is indeed who he claims to be?).

Contrasted with Christ Jesus:

Committed no sins nor broke any law, Mosiac or Roman.

Never advocated killing unbelievers (admittedly, some have done so in His name, but that it not condoned by anything He or any of the apostles said or did).

He was in every other way the polar opposite of Mohammed. The Bible is nothing like the Koran, which contains over 100 verses that repeat the theme of "kill the Infidel, JIHAD!!!!", allows Jews and Christians, in the status of Dhirmitude (I think I spelled that wrong?) to be married to muslim men againt their will even if they are already married and by the nature of the related Hadith and Shar'ia laws stands opposed to democratic rule if follows in the manner in which Mohammed intended.

Tell me again how this two are similar?

Noone ever claimed (at least on this thread) that Mohammed was consistent. But his inconsistency has no bearing on the development of the religion. Different main characters, but very similar back story (though there are noticable discrepancies between the two).

And what are these anti-anti-Islam pills you speak of? I think I might need some. Or just some anti-anti-religion pills. I really feel bad about hating religions as much as I do... a little, at least.

On bearing?! Mohammed created Islam from the ground up, he has sole responsiblity for it's beginings and where it went. Arguing that "well the Catholics did this or that back then" is pointless as nothing that they did is condoned in the Bible at all, especially by Jesus.

Another comparision:

Christianity: for the first three hundred years, christians were a persecution sect. And yet, they didn't go about knifing Romans in dark alleys.

Islam: From day one, they have ever been on a war (in the Koran, it is called Jihad) to convert or kill infidels. There is a reason that the world, acccording to the Koran, is divided into the Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War).

Jesus said He and we are called to "Set the captive free"; Islam aims to bring all people into submission.

While Jews and Christians, after being vanquished in battle, are to be treated under the Dhirimitude system (pretty sure that I bungled the spelling again.), pagans are basically fair game.

Heck, I'm on a role:

Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what the Muslim countries think about it. Last I checked, they reject it as "a secular notion based on Judeo-Christian thinking and thus incompatible with the holy Shari'a Law."

Face it, they are not at all related, in fact, they couldn't be more different.

So, before this goes any further, this all needs to be addressed.

[Neoteny]

They're not the same - Jesus isn't the son of God in Islam, which is a pretty big difference IMO.

Actually, Mohamed isn't considered the son of God. He is considered to be God's One True Prophet(tm) who was tasked with bringing the church back to its roots.

If you actually read the Koran, you'll see that it says that Isa (Arabic translation of Jesus) is the son of God and the Messiah.

Where?

Islam is not at all related to Christianity, I invoke a previous discussion here:

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity.

No, it didn't. If you've read the Koran you'd know that. Heck, if you knew who Mohammad was and what he did you'd know the difference.

Mohammad:

Orders the death of rivals by sycophantic followers

Marries the widow of a man he had executed, by same group of cultists noless, against her will I might add.

Marries the wife of his nephew, basically using the "It is the Holy thing to do" agrument, since he would know being the Prophet of Allah and all

Says to one group of followers one thing, returns to Mecca and says something else, then when group A shows up, he turns about-face again, claiming Shaitan (Satan) deceived him (the Satanic Verses, which are in the Koran).

Koran say a man may have up to but no more than four wifes. Mohammad violated this law, which he put in there!

Suffered from depression and suicidal tendices, even after he claimed to had seen "Allah" (who was covered so 'He' could not be seen. If Moses, who is proportedly a lesser prophet, like Jesus (Isa in the Koran), actually saw God in all of His manifest glory on Sinai, then why not Mohammed, if he is indeed who he claims to be?).

Contrasted with Christ Jesus:

Committed no sins nor broke any law, Mosiac or Roman.

Never advocated killing unbelievers (admittedly, some have done so in His name, but that it not condoned by anything He or any of the apostles said or did).

He was in every other way the polar opposite of Mohammed. The Bible is nothing like the Koran, which contains over 100 verses that repeat the theme of "kill the Infidel, JIHAD!!!!", allows Jews and Christians, in the status of Dhirmitude (I think I spelled that wrong?) to be married to muslim men againt their will even if they are already married and by the nature of the related Hadith and Shar'ia laws stands opposed to democratic rule if follows in the manner in which Mohammed intended.

Tell me again how this two are similar?

Noone ever claimed (at least on this thread) that Mohammed was consistent. But his inconsistency has no bearing on the development of the religion. Different main characters, but very similar back story (though there are noticable discrepancies between the two).

And what are these anti-anti-Islam pills you speak of? I think I might need some. Or just some anti-anti-religion pills. I really feel bad about hating religions as much as I do... a little, at least.

On bearing?! Mohammed created Islam from the ground up, he has sole responsiblity for it's beginings and where it went. Arguing that "well the Catholics did this or that back then" is pointless as nothing that they did is condoned in the Bible at all, especially by Jesus.

Another comparision:

Christianity: for the first three hundred years, christians were a persecution sect. And yet, they didn't go about knifing Romans in dark alleys.

Islam: From day one, they have ever been on a war (in the Koran, it is called Jihad) to convert or kill infidels. There is a reason that the world, acccording to the Koran, is divided into the Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War).

Jesus said He and we are called to "Set the captive free"; Islam aims to bring all people into submission.

While Jews and Christians, after being vanquished in battle, are to be treated under the Dhirimitude system (pretty sure that I bungled the spelling again.), pagans are basically fair game.

Heck, I'm on a role:

Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what the Muslim countries think about it. Last I checked, they reject it as "a secular notion based on Judeo-Christian thinking and thus incompatible with the holy Shari'a Law."

Face it, they are not at all related, in fact, they couldn't be more different.

So, before this goes any further, this all needs to be addressed.

Where's Guiscard when you need him?

I missed your response somehow, but all is good since you reposted it. Basically it seems I wasn't clear enough about what I meant with "different characters, similar backstory." The different characters are, of course, Jesus and Mohammed and their friends. The similar backstory refers to the Old Testament, of which versions of each are included in respective holy books. I think that if you look at it that way, your rant, at least in reference to anything I've said, is ignorable on my part. Anyhow, they are related. For example, the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses are in both the Bible and the Qur'an. Do those not count as similarities?

Hey, I'm as anti-Muslim as I am anti-Christian. I agree that quite a bit of the Qur'an is more venomous than the Bible. But to say that there is no similarity is a bit absurd.

[Skittles!]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

[Neoteny]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

To quote Dane Cook, "Jesus was ripped."

I totally want to be ripped like Jesus.

[heavycola]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

To quote Dane Cook, "Jesus was ripped."

I totally want to be ripped like Jesus.

Jesus could have scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky. He could have played guitar better than Hendrix. He could have baked the most delicious cake in the whole world.
Jesus was way cool.

Is that a king missile song?

[bloknayrb]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Duh. thousands of years later people painted him, thats how!

[DaGip]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Why?

[unriggable]

DaGip your post on the previous page brings into question the stereotype that all muslims hate everything.

[comic boy]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Duh. thousands of years later people painted him, thats how!

Did they paint him from existing photographs

[bloknayrb]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Duh. thousands of years later people painted him, thats how!

Did they paint him from existing photographs

Polaroids actually.

[Jenos Ridan]

Yeah, what he said: Jupiter and Mars as in the Ancient Roman Gods (King of Gods, and God of War respectively). But then, the Romans wrote about the, and drew about them, so they must be true!!!!1!

They were written/sculpted about in the context of religious icons, characters of plays and suchlike. Jesus was written about in the context of a historical figure. When people intentionally bring a hazy picture into view, misunderstandings are going to happen.

[Skittles!]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Why?

So I understand why people think he was white?

[muy_thaiguy]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Why?

So I understand why people think he was white?

Not white, exactly, but similar to what you would see in the Middle East today. Due to the almost constant colonizations by the Greeks, Romans, etc, there would have been little chance of Jesus being black at all. More closely to what the Arabs look like, if anything really.

[Jenos Ridan]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Why?

So I understand why people think he was white?

Not white, exactly, but similar to what you would see in the Middle East today. Due to the almost constant colonizations by the Greeks, Romans, etc, there would have been little chance of Jesus being black at all. More closely to what the Arabs look like, if anything really.

So, basically: tan with brown eyes and black, wavy hair which was probably cut long with some sort of facial hair. About five feet tall, somewhere in that range.

Given His heritage (Mary was Jewish), the comparison to Arabs is logical.

[muy_thaiguy]

I want to know how we know what Jesus actually looked like.

Why?

So I understand why people think he was white?

Not white, exactly, but similar to what you would see in the Middle East today. Due to the almost constant colonizations by the Greeks, Romans, etc, there would have been little chance of Jesus being black at all. More closely to what the Arabs look like, if anything really.

So, basically: tan with brown eyes and black, wavy hair which was probably cut long with some sort of facial hair. About five feet tall, somewhere in that range.

Given His heritage (Mary was Jewish), the comparison to Arabs is logical.

Basically, yes.

[Skittles!]

Yes, that's what I mean, but how do we know his face, his body? How do we know what he exactly looked like, when there is a high probability that there was never a portrait of him. And every picture I see of him, he is white. I really don't get it.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yes, that's what I mean, but how do we know his face, his body? How do we know what he exactly looked like, when there is a high probability that there was never a portrait of him. And every picture I see of him, he is white. I really don't get it.

Christianity, since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and the rise of Islam, became almost exclusive to Europe (and the Byzantine Empire). Before this, traveling would have been quite common place, as well as trade with the places in the Mid/Near East. But since the empires were falling, fewer and fewer European Christians were making pilgrimages to the Holy Lands. Thus, very few people knew what people of the Holy Lands looked like, and thought that everyone would be white. Though the hair, beard, clothing, and build would be about right. So, the image has stuck through the centuries. That's why.

[Skittles!]

Change it back then.