Cartoons?

[truehobbit]

Well, maybe it'll bring in some perspective when I say that this Robertson fellow, for all his pearls of wisdom, is completely unknown over here!

Yes, extremism makes the news and normalcy does not. I quite agree that it's the news reports that make you think the world is getting worse, when in fact it's only the news reports that are getting more!
On the other hand, the fact that things now get reported which would have been ignored in former times might just mean that extremism has always been as catastrophic as it seems now, only we didn't look.
"Honour killings", as one hears, have been a standard in many Muslim societies, and it's only now that they appear in our own world that we begin to notice them and point out where else they occur. So, does that mean the media are making a lot of something that is really quite normal? I don't think so.

Much as I would like to believe it, I do not think that 97% of Muslims would agree that certain parts of the Koran are plain wrong.
This does not mean that I think all Muslims are potential terrorists or something, which Wilma seemed to imply in her post!
There are, in my guess, about as many outspokenly civilised and enlightened Muslims, who embrace human rights etc in this country as there are extremists who wouldn't mind if all non-believers were killed - what worries me at times, like Whistler, is the silent majority. Yes, they want to live in peace and worldy comfort and benefit from the things a liberal society brings. And maybe, in the long run, this is what produces secular peace. But if asked what they feel deep down in their hearts about, say, the murder of this Van Gogh guy - I just wonder if they wouldn't, in spite of acknowledging - and meaning it - that it was illegal and punishable, still think that, in a way, it was also fair and deserved?

Btw, has anyone of you ever read the Muslim version of the declaration of the human rights?
There's some enlightening stuff, if you ask me!

Back to the Koran question: I agree with Whistler's post above on the supposed Bible equivalents.
I'm not a Bible scholar, though, and I don't even know the official position of my church on the relevance of 2000 years of scholarship. I do, however, think that one scholar may disprove another scholar, so that in one century one reading of a text is the official one and in another, because of a new scholar, a different reading becomes accepted - but I don't think that any scholar could ever just disprove the gospel itself!

Also (and again this is just speaking of my own reasoning on this, not speaking for the church here), the only thing that counts for me is the text of the gospel! The whole old testament doesn't have the least relevance to me! It's a collection of partly quite fascinating stories, and a number of rather weird (sorry!) "rules", whose only useful purpose, to my mind, is in showing just how big the change from the old to the new covenant is.
My own religious thinking is so gospel-centred, I even find myself struggling at times with accepting relevance for the epistles!
Now, of course I know there is contradiction even in the gospels themselves. IIRC, there is something, for example, where Jesus said the old rules should all remain - which would be a problem, as "turning the other cheek" seems in direct opposition to "an eye for an eye". So, maybe I'm reading selectively and just pick out the good things - maybe this is similar in the Koran, that at one point it says: kill them all and a few chapters on it says: don't kill anyone - I don't know that.
But, probably because of my own view of these things, I find it impossible to believe that a religion would place greater value on the interpretations of a scholar than on the words of the prophet themselves! If it does so, I think you are dealing with the making of a new religion!

One last point - sorry about this rambling post! - Imp brought up an example from Judaism. Of course, if it says somewhere the sacrifice has to take place in this or that temple and the temple isn't there - something has to change, and it's probably going to be the way people think about this rule! But there are some points which seem to me to make this not such a valid parallel:
First, this is a religion that has had something like four thousand years to develop! I think it's understandable that some things from the origins aren't quite applicable anymore. Islam, by comparison, is very young!
Second, it seems to me this is a marginal point (or isn't it?) - I wonder if such re-interpretations would also happen with more central, basic questions! It seems to me that the words of a religion on matters of life and death, as we are talking about with reference to Islam here, can't be anything marginal? Or maybe we are talking out of context, and the seemingly condemning articles belong to a marginal subject?

[Whistler]

What offended me in the Koran was not the presence of so much barbarity and violence. I know that all ancient cultures were barbaric, by modern standards. I expected nothing less.

What offended me was the almost pornographic way in which the writer revels in cruelty, encouraging his readers to wallow in orgasmic delight at the sight of the suffering of others. Apparently one of the greatest joys of Paradise is the privilege of watching the ungodly squirm in eternal agony.

In the Old Testament, violence is regarded as an ugly means to a necessary end. When the end is achieved, the time for violence is past and the godly are expected to place their minds on better things. In the Koran, the slaughter and suffering are viewed as praiseworthy in themselves. I find no parallel for this attitude in any other faith.

Thank goodness.

TH:

This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion, but I'm always stunned when somebody who embraces the New Testament claims that the Old Testament has no meaning for them. For me, it's like saying that while you love LOTR, the Silmarillion has no meaning! The latter is the book from which the former emerges, and the book from which everything in the former derives its meaning. Without the latter, the former is just a good story.

But that's for another time, I suppose.

[truehobbit]

TH:

This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion, but I'm always stunned when somebody who embraces the New Testament claims that the Old Testament has no meaning for them. For me, it's like saying that while you love LOTR, the Silmarillion has no meaning! The latter is the book from which the former emerges, and the book from which everything in the former derives its meaning. Without the latter, the former is just a good story.

But that's for another time, I suppose.

I think this would make a nice thread in the Shibboleth forum maybe?

I don't think you quite correctly represented my take on the relationship between Old and New Testament in this, but, yes, I guess I could say that the Sil has no meaning for how I read LOTR. LOTR does not need the Sil, IMO. The Sil does derive some additional meaning and importance from LOTR, though, so for me it's exactly the other way round: without LOTR, the Sil would just be a good story.

[Padme]

I think the biggest difference between Roberson and the Muslim extremists is that Robertson can spout off his BS and it does not incite Christian riots. I don't see hoards of Christians burning gay flags, or calling for killing millions of people because they are infidels. Perhaps some Christians do believe this, but the difference is Christians are not acting out on it. Sure the cartoons were probably insulting, but as I have said before how many Pope jokes are out there, how many Christ jokes are out there....well and you don't see Christians burning Iranian flags blaming Iranians for being infidels and evil because of it.

[vison]

See your and raise you one.

[Whistler]

What do you feed these things?

[vison]

They are virtual Llamas and so must be fed Virtual Llama Crunchies. I think someone sells them somewhere. Or not. You could probably whip them up quite quickly in your Cuisinart.

Real Llamas eat 'the best hay'.

In Real Life I am about to become a Llama owner. I'll let you know how it works out.

[Hachimitsu]

I am sorry Whistler if I infered or implied something that wasn't there in your post. I guess I have been reading too many of these threads lately and I saw something that wasn't there. I am sorry.

I think what I really wanted to get down to was the mindset that Hobby pointed out. That even the most moderate muslims think although the death of Van Gogh is wrong and illegal etc. he ultimately deserved it. That I think is unfair. For some reason I can't believe any religion could justify killing a director of a film detailing treatment of women. Particularly, when Islam was created, recorded (I don't know the right word), I think Mohammed or maybe some other figure was quite liberal toward women within the context of the time and region. Also, I keep hearing from Muslim women there are rights for women in Islam it's just those who are interpreting the texts try and hide a diminsh them. In the case of the death of the director the justification seems to directly contradict Islam if an individual was willing to look.

Also, I think how should I say this, regionality or tribalism gets mistaken or associated with a religion when it really isn't a part of the religion. Honour killings does not occur only with muslims. It occurs in India among sikhs, and there was a case among a Jewish family in Israel. For some reason I have this odd feeling that not all 3 holy texts explixtly stated doing this. The thing they have in common (broadly) is the geography. Female genital mutilaton has been associtaed with several religions and cultures. I remember some muslim women finding out in adulthood that what was done to them concerning that subject had nothing to do with Islam. They were horrified and then felt releived since now they knew they had a means of stopping it from happening to their daughters. Knowledge is power and it seems someone is determined to keep that knowledge away from the ones who will be directly affected by it. In the case of Islam rather then being on the fringe with this thinking it's par for the course. (I wll say and I think it's fair, it used to be like that for other religions too, remember the discussion about religion and women on B77? The text didn't really change but society and interpretations did.)

About the lack of moderate voices, I am relieved to finally see some of it on televison. Actually just today I have seen it (Anderson Copper on CNN and actually right now on CBC newsworld). Just like many others suspected, moderate voices were not being listened to acknowledged (on both sides). I think an Egyptian newspaper had actually tried to encourage some actual thinking rather then reacting and the editor got fired and thrown in jail. Also, finally the stuff I heard online that some Imams exagerated the case, is being brought out more on television and the newspapers.

I think there are a great deal of problems within the muslim world and I think sadly extremeist have taken hold and have used the religion to jusify their power. Any call for critcism or critical thinking on the religion can lead their grasp on power being at risk. I think ultimately that is what this is about, using religion to justify keeping thugs in power. They direct hatred toward the west to distract people from the bad job they are doing at home. Any religion can be used to justfy a viewpoint or cause (it's happened to me). I think what is happeneing is some clerics are using the parts of the Islam and are interpreting it in a way to suit their needs and dictating it to people. "Take X part of the text literally" (since it suits my purposes) and parts that seem to contradict the clerics agenda are hidden or reinterpreted. As long as they successfully stifle free thinking in the religion, the clerics stay in control of government. That is why news agancies like Al-Jazeera are controversial. I do know they talk about major issues in the muslim world. I would like to see it avaialble here just so I could evaluate it. 60 minutes did something on it and one clip showed a moderate muslim deabting an extremist. The moderate was calling the extremist an idiot and trying to correct quite a bit of what the extremist was saying. I think he was trying to expose how all these non-clerics like Osama Bin Laden can call on a fatwa. Apparently if you look closely at the rules they can't yet people believe they can.

I have said this in other threads. I think Islam can withstand criticism but Islamist governments can't.


(I guess I need to take a cousrse on religion next year for school.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very well said, Wilma. I feel like I don't have to say anything in this thread because you are already saying it better then I could.

This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion, but I'm always stunned when somebody who embraces the New Testament claims that the Old Testament has no meaning for them. For me, it's like saying that while you love LOTR, the Silmarillion has no meaning! The latter is the book from which the former emerges, and the book from which everything in the former derives its meaning. Without the latter, the former is just a good story.

But that's for another time, I suppose.

I think this would make a nice thread in the Shibboleth forum maybe?

Or Tol Eressëa

[Whistler]

Having said a great deal to criticize Islam from my reading of the Koran, I will also state that much of what is preached and practiced by these extremists (the sexual mutilation of young girls being an excellent example) is not found there, and I still wonder what monster dreamed up such ideas.

[Hachimitsu]

Thank You V for the compliment.

In response to Padme's post about the burning of gay flags, a few years ago an American Christian group (very very very small group), came up to Ottawa's parliament to protest the (Canadian) governments expansion on gay rights. They called Canadian media outlets and did interviews. They called the Canadian flag a gay (actully another word) flag and then proceeded to burn it on Canadian TV in fornt of the Canadian Parliament. They prayed and sang an offensive version of O Canada. Don't know if they were inspired by Pat Robertson.

For some reason flag burning just dosen't really bother of me.

[Cerin]

That even the most moderate muslims think although the death of Van Gogh is wrong and illegal etc. he ultimately deserved it.

I confess to having these kinds of thoughts as well. I guess it should give me insight into the kinds of feelings people have about Christians in general (thinking them hateful and judgmental) because of visible and vocal people like Robertson or because of Christians they know who seem to be like that.

I'm always stunned when somebody who embraces the New Testament claims that the Old Testament has no meaning for them.

I was struck by that, too. I don't know how you could separate them, but clearly the word 'Christianity' has become a rather large umbrella, and signifies a wide range of beliefs these days.

[halplm]

I know what truehobbit means, but I do view it like Whistler says... the Sil and LOTR analogy is accurate.

Without the Old Testament, the New has no meaning. However, with the New Testament, the old COVENANT, is replaced.

The New Testament explains what it means to be a Christian. Specifically, the Gospels explain what Christ said about the new covenant. So, I understand what truehobbit is saying about religious thinking being gospel-related.

If I'm lookign for an answer to a religious question, the first place I look is the gospels, to see what Jesus said directly on the matter. If I can't find the answer there, I'll look to the rest of the new testament, and see what is said there, as it would be the most relevant. Only if there's still nothing to satisfy my quesiton, will I thing go to the Old Testemant, and I will try at that point to fit any answers I find into the correct context and try to understand them.

The Old Testement doesn't go away with the New. But the New Testement defines what our relationship with God is NOW. The Old defined what it used to be. What it used to be is necessary to know, because it puts everything into context, but it is how things are NOW, that is the most pressing.

Do you need to know Gandalf is an Istari, or that they are/were Maia, to understand LOTR? No, you simply need to know he was a match for a Balrog, couldn't really "die" and Inspired the people to fight Sauron. However, if you read the Sil, all that makes more sense .

[Hachimitsu]

I love this place.

I will confess myslef I consider several cultural groups and religious groups ultra conservative when many of the individuals are not.

(Sometimes I am very surprised by the liberalism of my muslim friends parents, because I have been exposed to the other side if things with other friends and students at school. Sometimes I feel with my friends and students that I am walking this fine line when it comes to dealing with sensitive issues (*cougharrangedmarriagecough*) and meeting their parents. Especially since I am privately very conservative myself (about certain things), but it's not always apparent in the way I act. I guess the thing is it's different for every family/individual no matter what the background).

[JewelSong]

The Old Testement doesn't do away with the New. But the New Testement defines what our relationship with God is NOW. The Old defined what it used to be. What it used to be is necessary to know, because it puts everything into context, but it is how things are NOW, that is the most pressing.

I agree with halplm.

I find the histories and the stories in the Old Testament fascinating for many reasons. Partly because they are kind of a "road map" of the founding of a community and a religion, but also because they are full of such interesting and diverse characters. (A great book is "Peculiar Treasures - a Biblical Who's Who"by Frederick Buechner)

I also find the Psalms meaningful and inspirational. And the book of Job (some think this is the oldest book in the Bible) with all its symbolism fascinates me as well.

[yovargas]

Very interesting:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... ml?ref=rss

[Hachimitsu]

I wrote a long post but it got eaten. It basically said how come we are only getting this important imnformation now? There seems to be decisions made on both sides concerning information that lead to neither side getting the whole story. It's been said the protesters were whipped up into a frenzy, this guy was basically holding a whisk. That's pretty important info.

[truehobbit]

hal, thanks! That's exactly what I meant!
(Should I be scared now? )

However, I would not go as far as to say:

Without the Old Testament, the New has no meaning.

I think the essential teachings we get from the New Testament, namely that God loves us and that we should all love all his creation, too, can stand alone. They become perfectly clear from the NT alone, and in themselves are enough to impact our lives.
What I would say is that the OT gives an added layer of meaning to the NT - something which makes it even more important - but without which it would still be of decisive importance.

And, yes, it's the same with LOTR/Sil, IMO - LOTR can stand on its own, it does not need the Sil to reveal it's powerful meaning for our everyday real lives. (I know this because I realised this at first reading LOTR, without having any idea of the Sil.) However, the Sil gives it an added layer of meaning.

Wilma, great post! Good points about worldy power, and especially about some of those atrocities being cultural rather than religious - I agree with most of what you say!
However:

That even the most moderate muslims think although the death of Van Gogh is wrong and illegal etc. he ultimately deserved it. That I think is unfair.

How do you know it's unfair? Have you asked them?
I only said that I was worried that they might answer this if asked - I don't know what they would answer!
So, how do you know what they would answer?
I'm basing my worries on the fact that when apparently normal, worldly young Muslims were asked about honour killings, there were those who thought that was ok! Now, of course, the media just aired those answers that were shocking, and I don't know how many people were asked or how many people condemned it in any case. But for me, the simple fact that they found a number of people at all makes me worry about what the silent majority thinks.

[halplm]

I didn't mean the New TEstiment teachings aren't enogh for us to live our lives by. However, without the Old Testement, the foundation of why a covanent between God and Man is even necessary is not there.

I hope that makes sense

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If there is interest in continuing the discussion about the discussion about the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, now would be the time to split that discussion off, before too many posts get mixed between that subject and the actuall topic of this thread (like Hobby's last post). (Of course, if it was just a short tangent we should leave well enough alone).