As for Jesus being married, that didn't arise with "The Da Vinci Code". Although this is a major hot topic and a sore subject with most Christians there is really no definitive asnwer (form a historical stand-point) There is little real historical evidence either way, even using the NT as historical evidence.
There is no historical reference to the subject prior to the 2nd century to my knowledge.
Was not actually against the law, just tradition, if he was not married.
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
ok, I get it now.
Yeah, I had always been curious of it, then the "Da Vinci Code" movie just made it more popular.
I had always thought it was against law, thanks for clearing that up.
I love the mysteries of the Bible, and life of Jesus...
what happened during all those years of his life, that aren't mentioned in the bible?
[quote=Counts;1774150]Originally Posted by Burton13
Who? Me? Nahhhhhhhhhh, I wouldn't do such a thing.
Normally I wouldn't bring up a portion of the thread that is basically "over". But I happened along something completely by accident earlier today, and was surprised when I saw the source.
Earlier in the thread there was an exchange between Biggin and myself concerning Islam. He apparently mistaking thought I had taken part of my argument from this site:
TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
I had not, but did mention that I was familiar with the site. He went on to accuse the site of being racist. I disagreed with that opinion. Today , completely by accident, I came across a statement on this very subject by the authors of the site in question. I felt that since they had been accused of racism on this site, even if it is a limited number who see it, that they should be allowed to respond.
TheReligionofPeace - Race, Racism and Islam
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Race and Racism
Race is the arbitrary classification of individuals based solely on human genetics. How many races there are and what characteristics are used to determine racial identity is entirely subjective. Race is therefore a social construct, and not a physical science. It is no more meaningful to say that a person is of a certain race than it is to say that they live in Indiana rather than Illinois.
Categorizing people by race is also non-sensible and irrelevant. Consider the entirely feasible example of a girl born to parents who are a white European and a native African. Given the different races involved, which one would she be considered? More importantly, how could it possibly matter? Would being either “black” or “white” or something in between make her any different of a person?
Race also serves as the foundation for racism, which tries to emphasize distinctions between racial categories – arbitrary as they may be. Racism is the “science” of drawing broad conclusions from comparative studies, which are then assumed to apply to all members of a particular group who happen to share a genetic profile.
Racism is deeply flawed because it is fundamentally irrational. Human beings are not groups, they are individuals.
There is not one scientific or social fact that can be determined about an individual based on their race. For example, one cannot know what music another person enjoys, how they vote, or how high they are able to jump simply by knowing their race.
In fact, all racial stereotypes dissolve at the individual level. No matter how fast one runs, how quick one thinks, or how moral one’s character, there can always be members of any other race found who better excel at each of these – or any other imaginable measure. There is simply no such thing as a meaningful racial stereotype. People are whoever they are raised to be.
This makes perfect sense to intelligent people. Since racial identity is arbitrary, it cannot be deterministic. Without determinism, there can be no science. Therefore, neither racism nor the study of race has anything factual to offer.
In addition to being a false science, racism is morally wrong because it is the foundation for racial discrimination, in which different rules and standards are applied to individuals based on their presumed identity. In the past, people suffered tremendously (and unfairly, of course) because of this.
Thus, the artificial system of race serves no positive purpose. Lending legitimacy to the flawed theory of racial distinction leads, almost inevitably, to racism and the justification of racial discrimination. This, along with the inherent absurdity of even classifying people by race, should be enough to merit junking racial identification altogether.
Islam and “Racism”
Those openly critical of Islam are sometimes dubiously slurred as racists, regardless of what their true views on race may be.
In fact, Islam is not a race. Islam has nothing at all to do with genetics. It is an ideology – a set of beliefs about individual behavior and the rules of society.
Neither are Muslims a race of people. In fact, there are Muslims of all races.
Therefore criticizing Islam is not racism.
So why would anyone claim that it is?
It is because the battle over Islam is being fought in the West, the only arena in which this religion can still be critically debated. It is also here that repugnance toward racism is strong and nearly universal. As politicians well know, if one can successfully paint the opposition as “racist,” then the battle for public opinion is all but decided. From high-risk mortgages to illegal immigration, fear of the race card is one of the strongest influences on public policy.
At the same time, it is nearly impossible to defend Islam in its own right - which is why Muslim societies usually rely on threat of violence to suppress intellectual critique and the freedom of other religion. According to its own texts, Islam was founded in terror, and its political and social code is deeply incompatible with Western liberal values. Frustrated advocates of Islam’s advance are therefore prone to taking the crude and easy path of trying to squash debate by mislabeling criticism of their religion as racism.
Having to sling the worst of all slurs to compensate for deficiency of fact and logic is bad enough, but in this case there is terrible irony in that what is being defended in such cheap fashion is an ideology that is overtly supremacist in nature. In fact, those Muslims who do want to rely on the race card are not thinking very far ahead.
On the surface it would seem that if Islam really were a race, or Muslims a race of people, then any criticism of the common tie which unites them - in this case the religion of Islam – could be dismissed out of hand as racism, thus effectively protecting the religion from tough examination. But everything is not as it seems.
If Muslims are a race because of Islam, then it means that Islam is a racial ideology. What this ideology has to say about its own and other “races” therefore becomes a very important question.
In fact, the Qur’an places an enormous qualitative distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims that is hard to miss. Believers are loved by God, whereas infidels are hated to the extent that they are tortured for eternity (3:32, 4:56) merely for not believing. Muslims are told to shun unbelievers (3:118), who are called “helpers of evil” (25:55), “wicked” (4:160), “fond of lies” (5:42) and compared to the worst of animals (8:55, 7:176, 7:179). Members of Islam are told to be merciful to each other, but ruthless to those outside of the faith (48:29). Violence is also sanctioned against those who are obstinate against Islamic rule (8:12-13, 9:5).
So, if Muslims are a race, Islam would not only be a racist ideology, but arguably the most hateful and destructive in history. It is bad enough that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the last fourteen centuries by divinely sanctioned Jihad and slavery, but to retroactively supplant the stated motive of religious supremacy with that of racial superiority is hardly a step in the right direction for a religion seeking the acceptance of an increasingly skeptical audience.
Conclusion
Race is an arbitrary label that has no legitimacy. Therefore anything based on race, including racism and racial discrimination is unsound at best and immoral and inhumane at worst.
Human beings are individuals and should only be judged as such.
Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. Islam is an ideology that should be open to critical examination. Muslims, however, are individuals who should be protected from harm or harassment in the same way and for the same reasons as anyone else.
Glen Reinsford
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Sorry about the length, but i felt like it deserved to be posted.
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Religious intolerance and racism fall under the same category, discrimination. And that site is pretty discriminatory.
I disagree with the use of the word "discriminatory".
I'm not trying to claim that the site is not a bit over the top, but using words like racist and discriminatory, even comparing the site to the KKK, instead of attempting to refute points made by the sites author or pointing out mistakes in fact are nothing but an attempt to discredit without directly engaging and are weak attempts to avoid a strong (over the top if you will) argument.
I haven't really "studied" the site, just browsed it.
My opinion is that they point out a lot of very "uncomfortable" facts about Islam and the Islamic message, and they do this in an abrasive and somewhat radical manner.
I see no difference in how they approach Islam and how some sites, Internet Infidels come to mind, treat the christian religion.
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
It's not as extreme as the KKK, but certainly "preaching" the same message. They might go about in a lighter way, but its the same defaming method a KKK site would use. And as for the Internet Infidels site, I've never visited one...but if they do things the same way as that one, then they are definitely no better and maybe worse(like I said, I haven't been to it). Sites like that should be more "pro" their position than "anti" everyone elses. It's perfectly fine to compare and contrast two or however many religions, but not solely focused on how bad the opposing side is - whichever side it is, it's wrong to do so.
Again, I strongly disagree.
I think the sites author says it better than I possibly could:
"In fact, Islam is not a race. Islam has nothing at all to do with genetics. It is an ideology – a set of beliefs about individual behavior and the rules of society."
If these ideological beliefs lead to a clear and demonstrable pattern of inappropriate behavior there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.
Intolerance for a pattern of violence, abuse, and misbehavior in general based upon a set of ideological beliefs does not constitute "defaming" .
As for the internet infidels site, I've actually looked it over more carefully than I have this one.
They were pretty much the original modern source for the argument that a historical Jesus never existed. In fact, if one argues that point today they have without a doubt been influenced, knowingly or not, by the authors of that site.
Would I want the site removed? No!
That would be nothing more than an internet version of a book burning.....as is, to a slightly lesser extent, use of words like racist when dealing with a view you are in conflict with.
[img]http://www.lutte-wrestling.com/old-train2.jpg[/img]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks