Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by der-Matt

What a stupid question.

First - what do you gain from deleting a file from your Ereader except personal gratification, huh? How selfish.
Second - how on earth could anyone think of such stupid activity? It´s a book - it´s a religious artefact, a little bit respect wouldn´t go amiss.
Third - for those who may say, it´s just the ebook, this differs from the paperbook case. In this special case, someone who asks this question, after what happend or what those pathetic fools wanted to do - it is the same.

I dont know what some people in some countrys think who they are, or what is right - but for me thats medieval practices and thoughts.

Woah, take a deep breath and read the thread

I delete books from my reader all the time. Some of them I have repeatedly deleted, then put back, then deleted again. I don't gain any particular satisfaction from it, I just to it in an attempt to better organize the books I want to read or to have at hand. I suppose you could call it selfish, but the reader is mine and nobody shares it with me, so I'm not sure who I am hurting by organizing my books the way I want them. And I certainly am not going to treat a religious book in a different way.

I am also not going to go and find a religious-minded person and tell them "Hey look what I'm doing with your precious book, I'm deleting it from my reader, what do you think about that?" THAT would be hurtful and stupid. But just because somebody thinks this book is special doesn't mean I'm not free to make space on my reader, or delete it if I found a better version, or just simply if I decide I no longer need it.

I also wanted to mention that I make backup copies of my hard drive sometimes. I usually have two backups on an external hard drive, and when I want to make a new one I need to delete the oldest of the previous two to make space. So I regularly delete all my e-book files (among other things).

[Arthursbedtime]

I wish to state something that might now be obvious.

The western world has been under a propaganda campaign for more than 1300 years. The villian has been the leaders of the Christian church. Until the 17th century they would not even let people read the bible.

When Muhammad revealed the Koran, the leaders backed off, not allowing that His message might be a continuation of Jesus' message. Only in 1740s did the Koran get any english translation. (Sale) The message we got was that Muhammad was the enemy.
But He speaks in the highest terms about Jesus and Mary.
For what reason (raised as a christian) would a westerner read the Koran?

[GeoffC]

to learn ?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Arthursbedtime

I wish to state something that might now be obvious.

The western world has been under a propaganda campaign for more than 1300 years. The villian has been the leaders of the Christian church. Until the 17th century they would not even let people read the bible.

Problem: now that we have access to the Bible, we see that what the church taught as core beliefs prior to the printing press was largely accurate. Yes, there are denominational differences on non-imperatives (do you baptize infants, do you baptize by immersion, is communion transubstantiation, consubstantiation, is purely symbolic, etc.). And there are corrupt teachings (indulgences) and we still make mistakes even today -- which happen with Bible in hand, even! But the main issue of Christ's Godhood, loving, substitutionary, redemptive sacrifice for all, are core vales to all Christian denominations, and all taught in the New Testament. (Cults like the infamous Westboro Baptist runs afoul of multiple core teachings, most notably Christ loving all, which most certainly includes gays.)

When Muhammad revealed the Koran, the leaders backed off, not allowing that His message might be a continuation of Jesus' message. Only in 1740s did the Koran get any english translation. (Sale) The message we got was that Muhammad was the enemy.
But He speaks in the highest terms about Jesus and Mary.
For what reason (raised as a christian) would a westerner read the Koran?

I cannot comment on the history of the Koran's translation, nor of the "leaders backing off" that you refer to.

I do appreciate that Muhammed spoke of Mary and Jesus in the "highest terms." I would think that would be one good reason for a Christian Westerner (or Easterner!) to read the Koran.

But how can Muhammed's teaching be a continuation? Doesn't he contradict a core teaching of Biblical Christianity? That Jesus was the son of God, co-equal with God, on part of the Trinity, all of which make up the Godhead (man I hate that word!).

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Does Muhammed accept this teaching? If not, it's hard to reason that he's continuing Christ's teachings.

Not suggesting that this should keep people from reading the Koran, or should cause them to burn it, or any sort of public desecration (or to put it in Christian parlance: sheesh, read the book, it won't hurt you if you stand on the Rock!). However, when you say Muhammed speaks of Jesus in the "highest terms" there may be major caveats to that, some of which are contradictory to core Christian theology.

I'm curious, however, does all this mean you believe we should not delete a digital copy of the Koran from our Reader?

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

I don't believe Jesus thought himself co-equal with God. That seems to have been a later addition to his teachings that I think, as a Jew, would have revolted him. His message was not about himself; it was about the coming Kingdom of God. John was the last Gospel to be written, it differs substantially from the synoptics, and it's record of the teachings of the historical Jesus are suspect. As time went on, the story just got better and better, but I believe the man Jesus was a far cry from the stories and oral traditions that grew up around him that were later preserved in the Gospels.

Muhammad even makes reference to even later Gospels, ones that didn't make the final cut, such as when he speaks of Jesus making a bird out of clay and bringing it to life as a sign.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Arthursbedtime

I wish to state something that might now be obvious.

The western world has been under a propaganda campaign for more than 1300 years. The villian has been the leaders of the Christian church. Until the 17th century they would not even let people read the bible.

When Muhammad revealed the Koran, the leaders backed off, not allowing that His message might be a continuation of Jesus' message. Only in 1740s did the Koran get any english translation. (Sale) The message we got was that Muhammad was the enemy.
But He speaks in the highest terms about Jesus and Mary.
For what reason (raised as a christian) would a westerner read the Koran?

With all due respect, I believe it was people like Luther and Tyndale producing their own translations in the language of the people that eventually brought about the change in the Church's position on lay people reading scripture.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I don't believe Jesus thought himself co-equal with God. That seems to have been a later addition to his teachings that I think, as a Jew, would have revolted him. His message was not about himself; it was about the coming Kingdom of God. John was the last Gospel to be written, it differs substantially from the synoptics, and it's record of the teachings of the historical Jesus are suspect. As time went on, the story just got better and better, but I believe the man Jesus was a far cry from the stories and oral traditions that grew up around him that were later preserved in the Gospels.

Muhammad even makes reference to even later Gospels, ones that didn't make the final cut, such as when he speaks of Jesus making a bird out of clay and bring it to life as a sign.

Why is his record suspect? And while the tale could have grown in the telling, so to speak, John was an eyewitness. If we were, say, in a court of law, an eyewitness is considered one of the very best witnesses to a crime. Sure, there are suspect glossed sections in John (as discussed previously), but this is not one of them. This verse also exists on a pre-300AD fire manuscript (also referenced previously I believe). Hebrews -- authorship unknown -- also refers to the deity of Christ, as well as various "Son of God" and "Son of Man" references, interpreted as equating Jesus with God.

And while Jesus does not call himself "Son of God" in the synoptics, he accepts the phrase in Luke:

Originally Posted by Lk 22:70

"Are you the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Jesus also uses the "I am" phrasing here (typically significant, it may or may not be here, as I don't have the Greek or notes handy.)

You certainly can draw your own conclusions. But what's important here is that Muhammed contradicts Christian Theology, and therefore the statement that the Koran is a continuation of Jesus' teachings cannot be true.

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Why is his record suspect? And while the tale could have grown in the telling, so to speak, John was an eyewitness. If we were, say, in a court of law, an eyewitness is considered one of the very best witnesses to a crime. Sure, there are suspect glossed sections in John (as discussed previously), but this is not one of them. This verse also exists on a pre-300AD fire manuscript (also referenced previously I believe). Hebrews -- authorship unknown -- also refers to the deity of Christ, as well as various "Son of God" and "Son of Man" references, interpreted as equating Jesus with God.

And while Jesus does not call himself "Son of God" in the synoptics, he accepts the phrase in Luke:


Jesus also uses the "I am" phrasing here.

You certainly can draw your own conclusions. But what's important here is that Muhammed contradicts Christian Theology, and therefore the statement that the Koran is a continuation of Jesus' teachings cannot be true.

-Pie

All of the Gospels, except for Luke, are anonymous. The names given them were ascribed by tradition. None of the authors were eye-witnesses. Mark, the first to be written, and which served as one of the templates for Luke and Matthew, is believed by critical scholars to have been composed after 70 CE, about ten years after Philemon, the last of the seven books that can be reliably attributed to Paul.

Modern scholarship doesn't always gel with fundamentalist beliefs.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

All of the Gospels, except for Luke, are anonymous. The names given them were ascribed by tradition. None of the authors were eye-witnesses. Mark, the first to be written, and which served as one of the templates for Luke and Matthew, is believed by critical scholars to have been composed after 70 CE, about ten years after Philemon, the last of the seven books that can be reliably attributed to Paul.

Modern scholarship doesn't always gel with fundamentalist beliefs.

Just FYI: I'm not a "fundamentalist."

Be that as it may, we already had a similar discussion along these lines in this thread, and I disagreed with many of your assertions, particularly your use of vague and inflammatory language instead of actual citations: "critical scholars" -- what's this mean? who is a "critical scholar"? If a "scholar" disagrees, are they still "critical" or just a "fundamentalist"?

A bit of what you say here I actually agree with, and know where it comes from, but I'm not interested in going down this road a second time. The other discussion still exists for anyone interested in looking. It is almost the same as this one certainly will become, and includes citations from both sides.

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Just FYI: I'm not a "fundamentalist." ...

I didn't say you were. You are asserting that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. That's a belief of the fundamentalists. I was speaking of the belief, not you personally. If you wish to defend fundamentalist beliefs despite not being one yourself, be my guest.

And for the record, I consider a critical scholar to be one who follows the evidence wherever it may lead despite his or her personal pre-convictions.

And speaking of vague and inflammatory language, I'm not the one who referred to mainstream scholarship as "conspiratorial."

[WT Sharpe]

In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church came up with the following list which they referred to as the "Five Fundamentals" of the Christian religion:

1) The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2) The virgin birth of Christ.
3) The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
4) The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5) The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

One who accepts these is, by definition, a fundamentalist.

Here's a quote from Thomas Paine to mull over:

.....The Bible has been received by the Protestants on the authority of the Church of Rome, and on no other authority. It is she that has said it is the Word of God. We do not admit the authority of that Church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins, its amphibious doctrine of transubstantiation, etc.; and we ought to be watchful with respect to any book introduced by her, or her ecclesiastical councils, and called by her the Word of God: and the more so, because it was by propagating that belief by fire and faggot that she kept up her temporal power.
..........— Thomas Paine (1737-1809), English staymaker, American patriot, Deist. Contribution (unsigned) to The Prospect (1804). Quoted in The Great Quotations (1961) by George Seldes.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church came up with the following list which they referred to as the "Five Fundamentals" of the Christian religion:

1) The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2) The virgin birth of Christ.
3) The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
4) The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5) The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

One who accepts these is, by definition, a fundamentalist.

Wikipedia - whatever its veracity - has this as a definition of fundamentalism:

Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism is defined by its historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the twentieth century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism

This second, I would suggest, comes closer to what the man on the Clapham omnibus would take to be fundamentalism. The definition you gave would seem to characterize some kind of basic beliefs of Christianity - and in that sense such beliefs are fundamental, but that is not the derogatory sense in which the word "fundamentalist" is bandied about.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Why is his record suspect? And while the tale could have grown in the telling, so to speak, John was an eyewitness. If we were, say, in a court of law, an eyewitness is considered one of the very best witnesses to a crime. Sure, there are suspect glossed sections in John (as discussed previously), but this is not one of them. This verse also exists on a pre-300AD fire manuscript (also referenced previously I believe). Hebrews -- authorship unknown -- also refers to the deity of Christ, as well as various "Son of God" and "Son of Man" references, interpreted as equating Jesus with God.

And while Jesus does not call himself "Son of God" in the synoptics, he accepts the phrase in Luke:


Jesus also uses the "I am" phrasing here (typically significant, it may or may not be here, as I don't have the Greek or notes handy.)

You certainly can draw your own conclusions. But what's important here is that Muhammed contradicts Christian Theology, and therefore the statement that the Koran is a continuation of Jesus' teachings cannot be true.

-Pie

in your belief is it possible for you to acknowledge and understand that almost certainly none of the new testament writings (with few exceptions were still debated) were not written by anyone who lived during the time of Jesus and witnessed anything?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by TGS

Wikipedia - whatever its veracity - has this as a definition of fundamentalism:
This second, I would suggest, comes closer to what the man on the Clapham omnibus would take to be fundamentalism. The definition you gave would seem to characterize some kind of basic beliefs of Christianity - and in that sense such beliefs are fundamental, but that is not the derogatory sense in which the word "fundamentalist" is bandied about.

Wikipedia is horrible for any religious based information due to the potential for griefing. However, "fundamentalism" was a specific movement in the early 20th century similar to that described. It's become a catch-all phrase that has a sort of derogatory sense to it these days. (I've never heard anyone called a "fundamentalist" and it had been a good thing in context!)

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

in your belief is it possible for you to acknowledge and understand that almost certainly none of the new testament writings (with few exceptions were still debated) were not written by anyone who lived during the time of Jesus and witnessed anything?

If the evidence backed this up, sure. However, I do not believe the evidence comes even close to what you are asserting: "almost certainly" that "none" of the NT writings were by those of Jesus time. They were written later but I already stated my belief that they were still by eyewitnesses in some cases, specifically citing John (adding Matthew, with Mark and Luke talking to eyewitnesses).

I find it curious that The Bible is the most discussed book in a thread about The Koran! Nobody questions the authorship of the Koran? Would that not be more on topic?

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

I personally question the validity of the Qu'ran as an inerrant text. As I've already hinted at with my post about Muhammad quoting from later non-canonical and spurious sources in reference to Jesus breathing life into a bird of clay, the Qu'ran often quotes secondary sources and pseudepigraphal literature as if it were part of the received tradition. But (1) as our Muslims members have not made any claims here, I see no reason to pursue it, and (2) having not been raised in that tradition, I am woefully inadequate to properly address it.

Many believers have come to terms with modern scholarship and don't see it as an impediment to their faith, and I have no problem with that.

As to fundamentalist being a derogatory term, there are any number of Christian churches where I live that quite proudly self-identify as fundamentalist. I take it you're not from the South.