Blatantly political rant

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well, keep in mind, it's about as difficult as getting all of the Christians in the world to make one pronouncement en masse. It isn't like the Muslims have a central figure who dictates all. It's a lot more like all the different denominations of Christianity ... who would be the person to command that the position be made clear??

There wouldn't be. There are a number of different important imams and ayatollahs whose views command respect and whose pronouncements tend to be accepted as definitive, but the position is one of popular acclaim. There isn't a priestly hierarchy like the Catholic church, or anything similar.

And, I think that the central mosque in the sixth largest city in the US is not exactly an isolated group. However, the big problem --as I see it anyway -- is that there is this silent majority in almost every group. We just want to live and let live ... but we keep our mouths shut on most topics because we'd rather not get hammered down. I mean ... it's not that I fear for my life, but I gave up arguing with the religious right a loooong time ago. It was like arguing with a rock .... a big ol' unthinking rock.

The way you argue with a rock like that is to hit it with a bigger rock...

I have a sneaking feeling that my moderate (and some liberal) Muslim friends are in much the same position.

I suspect so. If you stand up and voice an opinion on something like that, you are letting yourself in trouble, even if the trouble doesn't take the form of physical danger, and you think hard about whether you really want to poke that hornet's nest with a stick.

You know ... when the Taliban blew up those beautiful statues of Buddha in Afganistan a few years ago, my heart just broke. Not because it was a statue of Buddha ... we don't perceive Buddha as embodied in a piece of rock, and it's impossible to dishonor Buddha just by blowing up a piece of rock, that's just laughable. But, what made me sad was that the Taliban was trying to erase a part of the history of the Afgan people ... those statues were a valuable piece of the history of art in Afganistan. It's like blowing up the pyramids (because they were built for god-kings and are therefore un-Islamic). Where would be the sense in that??

Who said it makes sense? The Taliban are hard core fundamentalists, drawing their strength from poor and ignorant rural populations of the "anything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden" mindset. I saw an article a while back talking about the challenges faced by the Afghan Folk Orchestra, a group of noted Afghan musicians playing traditional music from the area. The Taliban had forbidden music, and the members of the group had considerable rust to blow off when they could emerge and actually play again.

There was an interesting bit recently from Turkey, where a group of Islamic scholars are engaged in a project of re-examining the Hadiths. The Qu'ran is the fundamental basis of Islam, but the Hadiths are collections of sayings and practices attributed to Mohammad, and holding nearly the same authority as the Qu'ran. The scholars believe that the Hadiths need to be examined as products of a particular context, and modified to suit the present day.

For instance. orthodox Muslim practice forbids a woman traveling alone, and believes Mohammad made the original pronouncement. The scholars suggest that he probably made that pronouncement because back then, it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone. They think Mohammad was attempting to protect women from very real dangers, and not simply subordinate them to men, and that the practice needs to be adjusted for modern times when it isn't physically dangerous for a woman to travel.

It will be very interesting to see how this progresses.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Bossy* as God... I like that....(No offense DM, my whimsey pops up at the oddest times...)

No offense taken.

* Book - They'd Rather Be Right, Mark Clifton, Et.Al. - Hugo 1957, e-book on Fictionwise.

Nice to see Fictionwise has it. I have a paper copy around somewhere, and read Clifton's other books, _When They Come for Space_ and _Eight Keys to Eden_ back when as well. I think _They'd Rather Be Right_ is the weakest of Clifton's works, and the fact that it won the Hugo Award is explainable only by it being an off year for SF, but it's a fun read.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

There wouldn't be. There are a number of different important imams and ayatollahs whose views command respect and whose pronouncements tend to be accepted as definitive, but the position is one of popular acclaim. There isn't a priestly hierarchy like the Catholic church, or anything similar.]

Just Sunnis and Shiites and Wahabbists (?) .... there is no monolithic entity that controls it all either. Their may not be a hierarchy, but there are no important figures who can single handedly pronounce anything for Islam either.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The way you argue with a rock like that is to hit it with a bigger rock...

I'll try to remember that ...

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I suspect so. If you stand up and voice an opinion on something like that, you are letting yourself in trouble, even if the trouble doesn't take the form of physical danger, and you think hard about whether you really want to poke that hornet's nest with a stick.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Who said it makes sense? The Taliban are hard core fundamentalists, drawing their strength from poor and ignorant rural populations of the "anything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden" mindset. I saw an article a while back talking about the challenges faced by the Afghan Folk Orchestra, a group of noted Afghan musicians playing traditional music from the area. The Taliban had forbidden music, and the members of the group had considerable rust to blow off when they could emerge and actually play again.

Well ... yes, I guess nothing about religious fundamentalists make sense ... except to other religious fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

There was an interesting bit recently from Turkey, where a group of Islamic scholars are engaged in a project of re-examining the Hadiths. The Qu'ran is the fundamental basis of Islam, but the Hadiths are collections of sayings and practices attributed to Mohammad, and holding nearly the same authority as the Qu'ran. The scholars believe that the Hadiths need to be examined as products of a particular context, and modified to suit the present day.

For instance. orthodox Muslim practice forbids a woman traveling alone, and believes Mohammad made the original pronouncement. The scholars suggest that he probably made that pronouncement because back then, it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone. They think Mohammad was attempting to protect women from very real dangers, and not simply subordinate them to men, and that the practice needs to be adjusted for modern times when it isn't physically dangerous for a woman to travel.

Sort of a Torah/Talmud kind of thing ... except that it would be like Moses being the one who first stated the Talmudic law??

Well, that sounds reasonable. Actually, from what I've read of Mohammad, he seems like he was a pretty decent guy. The one story I remember hearing (from when I was really little) was that Mohammad loved his cat so much, that one day, while he was talking to his followers, there was a call to prayer. Well, his cat was sleeping on his robe ... so he asked one of the men to run and get a knife. He then took the knife and carefully cut the robe off around the cat ... leaving kitty comfortably sleeping, so he could go to pray.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It will be very interesting to see how this progresses.
______
Dennis

Yup. It will.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Just Sunnis and Shiites and Wahabbists (?) .... there is no monolithic entity that controls it all either. Their may not be a hierarchy, but there are no important figures who can single handedly pronounce anything for Islam either.

Don't forget Bahai...

Well ... yes, I guess nothing about religious fundamentalists make sense ... except to other religious fundamentalists.

Lots of aspects of cultures don't make sense to outsiders, and you need to dig a bit to get an idea of why they exist and what purpose they serve. Take the prohibition against eating pork shared by Jews and Muslims. Why does it exist? The best explanation I've seen is simple: Both Jews and Arabs originated in Palestine, an area that is semi-arid. Pigs are a tempting animal to raise, because "you can use every part of the pig except the squeal", but they simply require too much water. How do you prevent people from doing something very attractive in the short term that will be damaging long term? One way is "Because God said not to!"

Sort of a Torah/Talmud kind of thing ... except that it would be like Moses being the one who first stated the Talmudic law??

That was the impression I got, though I think the Hadiths are considered closer to "holy writ" in Islam, and serve a somewhat different function.

I think of Talmud less as a religious document (though parts of it concern religion), and more in the nature of "This is a collection of things we've learned as a people over several thousand years about how we should deal with other people and the world around us." Depending on the precise topic, G-d may or may not enter into it.

Well, that sounds reasonable. Actually, from what I've read of Mohammad, he seems like he was a pretty decent guy. The one story I remember hearing (from when I was really little) was that Mohammad loved his cat so much, that one day, while he was talking to his followers, there was a call to prayer. Well, his cat was sleeping on his robe ... so he asked one of the men to run and get a knife. He then took the knife and carefully cut the robe off around the cat ... leaving kitty comfortably sleeping, so he could go to pray.

I think it's reasonable, too, and I think followers of all religions need to bear in mind that the world was a different place back when their scriptures originated, and take time, place, and context into account when interpreting the scriptures.
______
Dennis

[slayda]

Edit; Forget I was here. Too late again.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Don't forget Bahai...


Lots of aspects of cultures don't make sense to outsiders, and you need to dig a bit to get an idea of why they exist and what purpose they serve. Take the prohibition against eating pork shared by Jews and Muslims. Why does it exist? The best explanation I've seen is simple: Both Jews and Arabs originated in Palestine, an area that is semi-arid. Pigs are a tempting animal to raise, because "you can use every part of the pig except the squeal", but they simply require too much water. How do you prevent people from doing something very attractive in the short term that will be damaging long term? One way is "Because God said not to!" I believe it was due to the parasitic factor as well......pork back in 'the day' was literally unsafe to eat. But how would you you convince people of that?


That was the impression I got, though I think the Hadiths are considered closer to "holy writ" in Islam, and serve a somewhat different function.

I think of Talmud less as a religious document (though parts of it concern religion), and more in the nature of "This is a collection of things we've learned as a people over several thousand years about how we should deal with other people and the world around us." Depending on the precise topic, G-d may or may not enter into it.


I think it's reasonable, too, and I think followers of all religions need to bear in mind that the world was a different place back when their scriptures originated, and take time, place, and context into account when interpreting the scriptures. b]Dennis[/b]

"interpreting" the scriptures? I think thats the problem in the first place. Every civilization, King, Pope, Messiah wanna be has put their own spin on it..we will never know what was truly written
______

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

"interpreting" the scriptures? I think thats the problem in the first place. Every civilization, King, Pope, Messiah wanna be has put their own spin on it..we will never know what was truly written

Even if we're fairly certain we have the original text, there's still the question of interpretation.

Consider the line "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", that was the justification of things like the Salem Witch Trials. One question is what "witch" meant when it was written, and I've seen a suggestion that it properly refers to a poisoner. In a semi-arid area where water is the scarce resource and wells are critical things, anyone who might poison a well can certainly expect fatal responses from those around them.

Also, "witch" as used by the Salem folks meant someone who sold their souls to Satan. Satan is the Christian church's source of evil and great enemy of God, but that conception probably wasn't there back when that line originated. The early Jews weren't even monotheists. They recognized the concept that there were other Elohim. Yahweh was simply their Elohim, who required that he be given precedence. The story of Moses besting the Pharoah's magicians can be read as "My god can beat your gods!", which Moses' god proceeded to do.

A background interest of mine is when the Jews became monotheists, and when and how Satan got designated as chief bad guy and opponent of God.

As a side note, I believe Islam recognizes Shaitan, too, but has a different account of his fall. Christians believe he was guilty of the sin of Pride, and refused to bow before man when commanded because he considered himself superior. Islam believes Shaitan acted out of love. He loved God so much he simply couldn't bring himself to bow before anyone except God.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

First, I argee with DM's response. He has it pegged.

Also agree. It was a good response. And so far as the response was also a reaction to the way I am perceived to be "telling" everyone what they ought to do, I understand the point.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How is it different from utterly refusing to change because somebody tells you to, and being the somebody demand another person do as they order? To me, they are just mirrors of each other.... And if they are mirrors, why is one acceptable to you, and not the other?

Let me mirror your original question back at you. Do you demand dominance for a reason, or just to enforce dominance?

I do not "demand dominance"... though if you insist on using such strong words, you could say I demand compliance... I would say I require compliance, but that's splitting hairs. Anyway, in the spirit of the question, if I did demand dominance (or require compliance), it would only be because I felt there was an overridingly good reason that it needed to be done, such as the preservation of life, or the upholding of a moral code.

I do happen to believe that the environment of this planet is in imminent peril of lasting damage that will be damaging to individual and overall all human life. I also believe that, because reversing these trends will be exceedingly difficult, becoming more difficult the longer we wait, that it is important that everyone do everything they can to start reversing these trends now... or else, we as a race have little chance. This, I'm sure, explains why I feel so strongly about trying to preserve the planet, and why I tend to speak of it in terms of necessity and compliance.

Unfortunately, I see this as a problem that has gone past the level of being solvable if "a few willing people" change, and the majority changes nothing. And any milder wording would only result in the minority acting, the majority doing nothing, and nothing being accomplished.

To tell you the truth: I know this is a fool's errand. The majority will refuse to change, either because they ignore the mild words, or rebel against the harsh words, making the efforts of the minority largely meaningless, until it is too late, and we have no choice. Our government needs to pour every dime they have into alternate energy research, and instead, they waste it guarding an oil-producing nation, while they insist on drilling more domestically. That strategy is going to sink us. But Americans will dutifully wait until their knees are wet before they'll change.

Well, I'm not waiting. I'm saying something now. If the harsh words tick off other people, that's just what will happen. Because I can't convince people to act by saying "pretty please."

To make my point, I provide logical reasoning, for example, my motorcycle story, or any other facts at my disposal... this I have done. I believe in my facts, and I defend them... until someone shows me where my facts are wrong, and I must accept new facts. I make my decisions based on these facts, as opposed to vague emotional positions, as often as possible.

In discussing the environment, I have offered facts, and I have refuted others' statements with more facts. I am willing to hear any facts that contradict mine, and force me to adapt to new facts.

Unfortunately, I can get frustrated in such discussions, because "I want to be left alone" and "you can't talk to me that way" aren't facts. A fact would be a statement like: "I have to idle my truck, because it is a 30 year old truck, and it often won't start, so I can't afford to shut it off, and I don't have the money to replace it."

That's a fact. Nothing I can say will change that fact. Idling discussion is over.

I may use harsh words, but they are not the only thing to my statements... they are only there to get people's attention, to get them to read the facts. And I state again, for the record, that if anyone has better facts, demonstrating why we should not take efforts to conserve, I want to hear them.

However, you don't need to say "I won't do it, because you didn't ask nice." That's a given. Asking nice is pointless. Acting is the only point.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Even if we're fairly certain we have the original text, there's still the question of interpretation.

Consider the line "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", that was the justification of things like the Salem Witch Trials. One question is what "witch" meant when it was written, and I've seen a suggestion that it properly refers to a poisoner. In a semi-arid area where water is the scarce resource and wells are critical things, anyone who might poison a well can certainly expect fatal responses from those around them.

Also, "witch" as used by the Salem folks meant someone who sold their souls to Satan. Satan is the Christian church's source of evil and great enemy of God, but that conception probably wasn't there back when that line originated. The early Jews weren't even monotheists. They recognized the concept that there were other Elohim. Yahweh was simply their Elohim, who required that he be given precedence. The story of Moses besting the Pharoah's magicians can be read as "My god can beat your gods!", which Moses' god proceeded to do.

A background interest of mine is when the Jews became monotheists, and when and how Satan got designated as chief bad guy and opponent of God.

As a side note, I believe Islam recognizes Shaitan, too, but has a different account of his fall. Christians believe he was guilty of the sin of Pride, and refused to bow before man when commanded because he considered himself superior. Islam believes Shaitan acted out of love. He loved God so much he simply couldn't bring himself to bow before anyone except God.
______
Dennis

I had an argument with a minister (fundamentalist and Baptist) about this sort of thing ... around the time I left the Christian church (I guess I was about 15 ...). My thought back then was that even if you assumed that a god existed, I doubted that he was going to start his holy book with "In the beginning there was a immense explosion, and billions upon billions of years later, there was a coallessing of atoms ...." (I was a proponent of an expanding universe at a very early age ... steady state just didn't appeal to me.)

He actually went to our house and asked my mother to make sure I didn't come to "his" church anymore. My mother informed him that she didn't want me living with braces on my brains, so she would make certain I didn't.

Yaaaay Mom!!!

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Even if we're fairly certain we have the original text, there's still the question of interpretation.

Consider the line "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", that was the justification of things like the Salem Witch Trials. One question is what "witch" meant when it was written, and I've seen a suggestion that it properly refers to a poisoner. In a semi-arid area where water is the scarce resource and wells are critical things, anyone who might poison a well can certainly expect fatal responses from those around them.

Also, "witch" as used by the Salem folks meant someone who sold their souls to Satan. Satan is the Christian church's source of evil and great enemy of God, but that conception probably wasn't there back when that line originated. The early Jews weren't even monotheists. They recognized the concept that there were other Elohim. Yahweh was simply their Elohim, who required that he be given precedence. The story of Moses besting the Pharoah's magicians can be read as "My god can beat your gods!", which Moses' god proceeded to do.

A background interest of mine is when the Jews became monotheists, and when and how Satan got designated as chief bad guy and opponent of God.

As a side note, I believe Islam recognizes Shaitan, too, but has a different account of his fall. Christians believe he was guilty of the sin of Pride, and refused to bow before man when commanded because he considered himself superior. Islam believes Shaitan acted out of love. He loved God so much he simply couldn't bring himself to bow before anyone except God.
______
Dennis

Ever read James Micheners "The Source"? Really interesting based on factual research, history of a 'tell' in Israel. His is 'windy', but very interesting to learn how civilization progressed at that particular place over periods of time.
One of the most interesting items....was the Jewish Rabbis' interpretation of the word we know as "virgin" They interpreted it to mean "maiden" Make a huge differnce in how you look at things, doesn't it?

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

One of the most interesting items....was the Jewish Rabbis' interpretation of the word we know as "virgin" They interpreted it to mean "maiden" Make a huge differnce in how you look at things, doesn't it?

the Hebrew word, 'Alma' can be translated as 'young woman'. It did not necessarily mean physically intact virgin. So the prophecy, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive' may not have predicted a miraculous virgin birth.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I had an argument with a minister (fundamentalist and Baptist) about this sort of thing ... around the time I left the Christian church (I guess I was about 15 ...). My thought back then was that even if you assumed that a god existed, I doubted that he was going to start his holy book with "In the beginning there was a immense explosion, and billions upon billions of years later, there was a coallessing of atoms ...." (I was a proponent of an expanding universe at a very early age ... steady state just didn't appeal to me.)

He actually went to our house and asked my mother to make sure I didn't come to "his" church anymore. My mother informed him that she didn't want me living with braces on my brains, so she would make certain I didn't.

Yaaaay Mom!!!

RM, what I find interesting it that if you correct for multiple translations, and that the original source was written for a non-scientific (and barely literate) audience, what you end up with in the tale of the beginning in Genesis is the big bang theory. The amazing thing is that this myth beat out all the others over 5,000 years to match up with modern physics.....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I had an argument with a minister (fundamentalist and Baptist) about this sort of thing ... around the time I left the Christian church (I guess I was about 15 ...). My thought back then was that even if you assumed that a god existed, I doubted that he was going to start his holy book with "In the beginning there was a immense explosion, and billions upon billions of years later, there was a coallessing of atoms ...." (I was a proponent of an expanding universe at a very early age ... steady state just didn't appeal to me.)

I think one problem on the part of folks like that is a failure to comprehend infinity.

I'm bemused by the folks who think God created the heavens and the Earth in six days of 24 hours each, and rested on the seventh, and that this all took place about 4,000+ years ago. Since our 24 hour day comes from the rotation of the Earth facing the sun, and neither existed when God began, the idea that God's day is 24 of our hours long is a big assumption.

And aside from that, whether creation is 4,000+ years old or 14 billion years old doesn't matter. If we assume there is a God who is eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient, who had no beginning and will have no end, the entire time creation has existed is less than an eyeblink for Him.

Question 1 for the creationists is "What do you think God was doing in all of the uncountable eons before he decided to create the heavens and the Earth? Why do you assume our cosmos is the only one He made?"

Question 2 is "And what did He do on the eighth day after he had rested? What makes you think he's finished creating?"

For the first, I rather like the idea Olaf Stapledon proposed in _The Star Maker_. His Star Maker was an artist, learning its craft by doing, and ours was neither the only nor the last universe it would create. Stapledon had the Star Maker creating many universes, until it finally created the ultimate cosmos, the final flowering of its art, and would settle back and spend the rest of eternity contemplating it.

As for the second, I think He did just what we do after the day of rest: He went back to work. Our universe is a work in progress.

He actually went to our house and asked my mother to make sure I didn't come to "his" church anymore. My mother informed him that she didn't want me living with braces on my brains, so she would make certain I didn't.

Yaaaay Mom!!!

Indeed. Your Mom was a seriously cool person.
______
Dennis

[jamesdmanley]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

We just want to live and let live

I was sitting with a friend/client who happened to be Muslim, at the time all this Taliban desecration was going on .... and we started going through a list of all the beautiful pieces of art and architecture that the Muslims or the Christians could probably justify destroying in the name of "religion."

problem is some out there arent letting live.

dont forget an entire culture the communist party destroyed in china

[Patricia]

St Augustine and others suggest that God is eternal in the sense that ALL time is present to him at once. He exists outside time.
So, if he were to look at you, he wouldn't see you now (unless he chose to freeze-frame his vision at one moment). Rather, he would see all your existence in one glance (maybe like a long line?)