|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This belief thing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Sorry if it seems long, you know how it goes
Where does the Koran describe the idolatrous religions? Surah An-Nisa - 119 - Quran.comSurah Al-Ma'idah - 3 - Quran.com Surah Al-Ma'idah - 90 - Quran.com Surah Al-An'am - 74 - Quran.com Surah Al-A'raf - 138 - Quran.com Surah Al-A'raf - 145 - Quran.com It's not a history of idolatry It's not really a history book. The Bible is a library of books, not all of them are history books. You should read Chapter 7 - Abraham.
quote: It starts its history of disobedience and idolatry pretty early, wouldn't you say?
quote: quote: quote: quote: Bear in mind that this is one Chapter. The whole Koran is about the length of Genesis, and covers lots of subjects, and most of the first five *books* of the Bible contain historical origin information of some sort.
quote: It goes onto the fall of the Midianites for turning their back on God. It also has the story of the Pharaoh and Moses.
quote: quote: quote: quote: There's lots more. I think that should count, right?
No, I meant it's unique in the sense that it is a history, and it's a history that is coherent over a millennia and a half of different writers. We could argue the toss on this, but the end result is that all books can claim some property that renders them unique. And being as the Bible is about 70 books depending on denomination, then there's plenty of material to claim uniqueness. The Quran is unique in being written by a single illiterate goat herder, for example. Or is the only major religious text that claims to be the verbatim Word of God, dictated through a prophet?
quote: Asherah, Allat. Or any other female goddess that people were trying to say were God's consort at the time it was written. There are the (in)famous Satanic Verses:
quote: All three are local female goddesses to the region.
But it isn't an answer to my claim, which was that the Bible gives a history of the world that explains how the idolatrous religions came about -- i.e. through the Fall, which gave Satan and his horde power to rule human beings and invent religions that put Satan in the place of God and deny the true God. Has anyone ever told you that you should read things that you are going to criticize. As shown above, everything from the fall through Noah, Moses, Abraham, all of that. Not only that but it specifically cites the Old Testament as Holy Scripture.
quote:http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/frames/ch53.html quote: The Book of Psalms gets the thumbs up:
quote: It also speaks of The Gospel, though this is meant to be the Original Gospel, given to mankind by God - rather than the fragments that made it into the New Testament written by flawed people.
The problem is that Christianity is the only religion that is based on an abundance of eyewitness accounts. Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, Sikhism can all claim to have this distinction too.
Islam has one witness, Mohammed himself, and he isn't witness to anything historical anyway, just to his meeting with the angel he calls Gabriel and what the angel dictated to him. Nope. For one, Mohammed couldn't write. He dictated. To witnesses. Those witnesses also witnessed other miracles. Also - Abraham, Moses, Noah and Jesus don't count, suddenly? So the nature of the belief is this:Beliefs are stupid Unless they are yours Seriously though, belief is a funny thing, religious belief particularly. All religions, when they proclaim things to be one way, necessarily exclude the other options. Some religions were tolerant of adding new deities, or modifying existing ones, morphing their beliefs to suit the zeitgeist etc. But if you try and tell those religious people they are wrong to do this, and they'll make their displeasure known. Other religions are utterly inflexible, or pretend to be. Unflexible beliefs can lead to strange places. I tell you about a God who created Adam, who was tempted by Satan, punished by God. One of his descendants, Noah was given a heads up by God before flooding the world. God went to Abraham, and he went to Moses, he spoke with King Solomon and King David, destroyed the Midianites, etc etc and then tell you about a God called Allahwho created Adam, who was tempted by Satan, punished by Allah. One of his descendants, Noah was given a heads up by Allah before flooding the world. Allah went to Abraham, and he went to Moses, he spoke with King Solomon and King David, destroyed the Midianites, etc etc And belief can make you think 'Hey you are talking about two completely different gods'.
If the characteristics are different it seems likely we're not talking about the same person. Belief is good. We cannot function without belief. The question that has plagued mankind for a long time: which beliefs should I believe, and which ones are deceptions? Is answered (I'm being loose) one of two ways 1) Theology. Pick a faith. Stick to it.2) Philosophy: Try and figure out the best way to pick beliefs, then pick beliefs that mesh with this. With some exceptions, the arguments for Islam and Christianity are the same. Picking either is as good as picking the other. It's little different than picking between Mozart and Beethoven. Christians will say there's is better because their unique book contains a history...prophecy....and witnesses.Muslims will say the history had already been written. And not by Christians. They have a unique book dictated to mankind by God himself. Unedited, unchanged. Perfect, written in the most beautiful poetic forms that nobody has been able to replicate, proving its divine authorship. Usually, the belief is chosen, is the primary belief of the community. If nothing else, its easier to be in the majority. But the majority also gets more word of mouth discussions, they get more billboard space, they get to put their symbols on government property even if it is actually unconstitutional to do so. So the propaganda of family, friends, the local religious centres, co-workers - usually means people go with whatever is significant in their community. Because religious belief is about community more than God. God is just a foci for Muslims, Jews, Christians whatever to come together regularly in a spirit of openness trust and goodness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I think modern Islamic scholarship has evolved on some issues. That's why it's called modern, surely?
But the "Old Testament" people are put in a different time and place I think. I'll need evidence. The default position is not to call Allah a liar. Everything he says is literally and figuratively true.
I hear lots of American black Muslims saying this anyway. (and lots of conspiracy theories on why the blackness of Biblical characters were covered up and how modern Jews are just Greeks and Germans imitating Black Prophets mentioned in the Koran and the Bible. But many black Christians say the same thing, except they say "Jews were black" which is actually quite simple because at least "Jews" are a common point of reference when talking to Christians. Many black Muslims have conspiracy theories so elaborate that I get confused. It's like they know the name of every tribe in the Bible and relate them to every ancient people. "The Hyksos were black" then "Romans, Greeks, Germans flooded the Middle east and North Africa" is all I can remember. ) What the fuck was that?
I think even Arab Muslims now question the traditional time and place issues. What made you think this?
Now they say that there is a possibility of Solomon living in Arabia perhaps 5000 BCE. Who says?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Could be the influence of the Nation of Islam, which has been rather nutty in various ways. Ah....Culture. Where someone can say 'black Muslims' and anticipate that the other person will picture an eccentric group comprising of a few tens of thousands rather than, you know the millions of people that are black, Muslim and not in the Nation of Islam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK, that's the 'What' of your discourse - as to the why, I'm still unclear.
Salibi's ideas are not exactly 'new', they're from the early 80s. And yes, they have been used for propaganda purposes to dispute the validity of Israel. I'm not sure of the connection to my post. That religious beliefs are diverse? Were you challenging the notion that the Koran describes incidents at some of the same places as the Bible because some people think those places exist at different coordinates? I'm just unclear as to why you brought it up sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It has been standard for Muslims to see the Hebrew Bible as largely written close to the time of the events and in the same local as the events. It has been standard to see the "inspired" prophets (of which the Koran mentions like 30 or so) as not very far removed from the books in the Hebrew Bible that bear their name. It might not be the case anymore (for whatever reason). So? I mean if the Koran is believed to be referring to other times and places then the Bible will be believed to also refer to other times and places. The same other times and places as with the Koran. So even believers that differ in where and when things occurred according to history and geography, they still agree that the Koran and Bible are referring to the same things.
It should also be said that it is more difficult to disprove Koranic descriptions of events (except the flood), especially if the Adam story is a metaphor. There are no chronological markers which can make it easily falsifiable. The Tower of Babel story is absent, so that helps the Koran a lot when it comes to standing up to critics. As I said, it's not a history book. But what's this got to do with the topic or the subtopic? The Temple of Solomon is located somewhere. Most people say it is in modern day Israel. Other people say elsewhere. Mormons believe the garden of eden is in America, for instance. Doesn't mean they aren't talking about the same place as Jews, Catholics and Muslims.
I'm not sure Israel is the main reason many Muslims argue these points. Then look it up.
. Many are actually quite critical of the theory of evolution plus are sensitive to attacks against the history presented in both the Bible and Koran. What has this got to do with why Muslims might say modern day Israel is not in the right place?
And (multi generational American) blacks have a monumental obsession with race and historical issues. And again, what exactly has this got to do with the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Now we have a situation where Islam occupies the same place as this hypothetical c.1500 religion mentioned above. Really?
quote: First off, the distance is not comparable. The distance from Tehran to London is 5.5 thousand km. Second, this is not what Muhammed did. Here's what happened according to their own religious histories: The Jews wrote their texts and their histories. Different groups/sects/factions arose. New Jewish prophets came, some real and ignored, others fake and ignored, others fake and believed and a few real and believed. But those prophets likely got followers, formed their own little sects, some probably grew. The Samaritans, provide a striking example for instance. Then the Temple was destroyed and the believers wanted to know what to do. A new prophet shows up called Joshua. He gives his instructions on how to pray and have a relationship with God in a world without the temple and other things too. He reaffirmed previous texts, providing alternate interpretations, reinforcing some points etc and said some new things. This Jewish subsect grew into Christianity. (OK, within the religion, Christ preceded the Temple destruction but the point is the same) Then in another semitic group, from 800km south another Prophet rises. Others of the time think it is a new Old Testament cult. The Prophet says that the stuff in Judaism is basically correct, he cites specific Jewish texts as being holy scripture. He clearly has been exposed to those texts based on what he says. He reinforces some points, provides some alternate interpretations. He does not say Solomon was ruling in Arabia in 5000BC. Then in 1982 a man writes a pop religion-history book with a controversial idea. The idea is that the information contained within the Bible about the locations is all relative based. He observes that the Bible doesn't really make sense of the locations, they don't map out properly. He proposes that instead of limiting the borders discussed in the Bible to the region of Israel/Jordan - the entire Arabian peninsula (something like this). He 'blows up' the map given in the Bible and transposes it over the whole area. He comes up with dates that differ from traditional dates. I don't see any significant Islamic support for this notion, but there is some support out there. That's all you've shown me so far as far as I can see. There doesn't appear to be a parallel that I can see to your hypothetical that matters.
First, the rise of modern scholarship, which has called into question that dates of the texts, and modern archaeology, which finds an Israel from 1200 BCE - 730 BCE but no Judah until terrified Israelite refugees, fearing ever more endless Assyrian assaults, turned the highland hamlet Jerusalem into a population center around 750-720 BCE and the Holy Bible was written (see introduction to the Finkelstein book for the atmospherics surrounding the origins of the texts). There has basically always been dispute over the dates.
The Nation of Islam movement which challenged the Jewish texts (not to mention the people) and their claims of representing the original events. The Nation of Islam is not influential in Islam. They have less influence over Islamic opinion than the Alawites, for example. Even the Druze has more influence over Islamic thought than the Nation of Islam. Seems to me the flow of influence as far as religious ideas is basically one way.
It raises new issues for the evolution verses creation debate. Why?
Islam is becoming a very large religion and views are changing. It's basically the same size as it was relative to the rest of the world when the debate started. They've always been involved in the EvC debate. Change has been happening in the Islamic world for just as long. Around Darwin's time people were saying
quote: Seems to me you provided a minority viewpoint which doesn't challenge anything I said. It's an interesting perspective, so thanks for sharing, but you seem to think it's a big deal and I just don't see it.
It is very much on topic IMO. Can you confirm that my guess about your point is correct? You are trying to say that there were two Solomon's in this perspective? One real one, and one fictional one and that Islam is increasingly claiming to believe in the real one - while arguing that the Biblical one is the fictional one? Because I don't see that happening, but I'd be interested if you have more evidence than Salibi's theories as I understand them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
We have a sick man on our hands, a man gravely ill, it will be a great misfortune if one of these days he slips through our hands, especially before the necessary arrangements are made. Huh? I didn't say that. I'm not sure where this came from. Somebody hacked me if this was under my name. Honestly. I preceded the quote with the words "Around Darwin's time people were saying". It's a very famous quote attributed to Nicholas I by John Russell about the Ottoman empire.
The Islamic texts have always said that the Jewish texts weren't the original unmolested texts. Most educated Jews and Christians agree with them on many points regarding non-originality and unmolested condition of the texts. What's your point?
I think we all can imagine lots of "chatter" over the past 1400 years. What was the "popular view" verses the official edicts from the Caliphs? I'm sure the Caliphs simply ignored the situation, and whatever comments they made about the Jewish scriptures and Gospels were very mild and not too earth-shaking. What has this got to do with what I said?
Judah was always assumed to have existed in the 10th century in a way comparable to the Biblical description And Muslims on the whole concur with this. Whatever their religion, what difference does their dates have on this discussion?
Their forceful theories on geographical and racial/tribal issues surely made their way around the globe. I'm pretty sure Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine....already have a pretty practiced system of racial/tribal issues.
Did the Jewish Solomon actually exist? Does it matter?
My post is lost though. And the OP is made we are even discussing this. I assume this is a concession of some kind? I still don't understand why you raised these points, but if you are happy to drop them that's fine by me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
My point is that they never had a great explanation of what the original texts said. OK.
We don't know what the average Muslim thought about the textual situation. OK.
But Islam says the Hebrew Biblical texts weren't the original texts. Show me what you are talking about. What does Islam specifically say about which texts in which texts?
Take the situation of Judah and the failure to find any mention till after the 2nd half of the 8th century BCE, despite endless Assyrian campaigns from c.850 on. Take the case of Assyrian king Adad Nirari III from 811 to 783. Here is an Assyrian text from 797 BCE. It covers an invasion to Palestine. Notice how Judah isn't mentioned. OK, I notice it. Now take the Islamic texts and show this represents a problem.
My point is that many diverse views would exist as to what the original texts say. What any text says, as my experience here at EvC proves to me.
The Nation of Islam is obsessed with white people (as American Jews appear to be) being imposters of the "chosen" black-skinned people (who came from Africa where the REAL Eden was), and that created an opening to question a lot of issues related to the original texts. The Islamic texts were seen as offering complatibility with their view. So....?
Well, Black Muslims in American think it does. Palestinians seem to be interested in the issue. Historians are interested. Archaeologists are interested. And how does this answer my question?
quote: You seem to be arguing that some Muslims believe there was the REAL Solomon from 5000BCE or whenever, and the Biblical Solomon who lived considerably later. That this is in contradiction with archaeology. Am I correct? I'm still not clear. It's strange, I'm often assailed here with conclusions with insufficient arguments, here I seem to have lots of arguments but I'm not clear what you are concluding. I don't think there are any absolute dates in any of the Scriptures, though perhaps I am wrong. I expect there may be problems with relative dating. Any absolute dates are usually derived from Traditional Sources. The religious may accept them as true, but their religion generally doesn't stand or fall on Traditional Sources, even if they are usually relied upon. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024