Blasphemous cartoons

[dmetzcher]

I don't have a lot of time but I will say this, we haven't seen the *prophets* of other religions mocked in a way that I think Muhammad was mocked. You don't see Jesus or Moses dipicted as a killer. It's one thing to mock how people have corrupted a religion, I think quite another to insuate that another's religion is inherantly evil.

People are entitled to their beliefs. Though I do not agree that Islam is evil, or any major religion, people are entitled to disagree with me, and publish such disagreements in their papers.

Also, it is really not our place to try to qualify the level of anger that muslims should feel. That, to me, is kind of the point. When you do that, you cease to respect the other. A normal person, having unintentionally offended someone would say, 'I'm sorry. I didn't think that would offend you.' If you don't care you say, 'oh well, get over it.'

I would have to agree with this statement. I say, "oh well, get over it". Do you know why I say that? I say it simply because I think that those claiming to be religious shoud rise above the pettiness of the "non-believers". Is that not what both Christianity and Islam both speak about?

Also, the freedom of speech argument is a joke. Like Oliver Wendel Holmes said, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.' I think it's safe to say that the Danes have done at least that.

Correct, because that is meant to cause panic, and can be immediately proven to cause panic. Study what the Supreme Court of our country has, in previous cases, determined to be free speech. Simply because something is offensive, and might cause people to act out in a similarly offensive way, does not remove the First Amendment protection granted to speech. Your analogy does not fit. To put it another way, people fleeing a supposedly burning theater, because some ass declared that there was a fire, are terrified, and are fleeing for their lives. People burning a building because someone offended their religion are simply angry. That's all it is, one of humanity's basest emotions - anger (hatred, really) toward another - even if that anger is well-founded, and I think it was, in this case. Simply put, the Supreme Court does not agree with you, the forefathers did not agree with you, and your argument does not hold water. So, it would seem that the "freedom of speech argument", as you put it, is not a joke.

What is a joke is how easily my fellow Americans are able to give up their freedoms simply because they are not doing what the person in question is. The idea is, "well, I'm not a [insert whatever group you want here], so it doesn't affect me." When they come for you, and you have let everyone else be rounded up in years prior without ever examining the broader implications, who will stand with you in defense of your freedoms? No one. They'll all be gone.

Martin Niemöller said it in a more profound way than I ever could have above:
=================================================
"First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
=================================================

I stand by the freedoms we were granted by birth, not by any god or gods. This is not an American ideal, in my opinion (how arrogant of us to think that it ever was), it is a human ideal.

 

[dmetzcher]

The Jerry Springer Opera is just one extreme example of how offensive material against Christianity gets published in the West, under the guise of freedom of speech. Even more common examples of blasphemy include how the name of Jesus Christ is turned into a swear word. Try doing that with the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Buddha and see the kind of reaction you will get. Now, the most common excuse for allowing such language on TV is the fact that the West consider themselves 'insiders' to Christianity, and thus using such language is a tongue-in-cheek cricitism of themselves, or that due to the 'Christian' culture of the West, no one should be offended when the name of Jesus Christ is used in such a way. Yet, how many of the people who use such language are Christian (i.e. active church goers, regular Bible readers, etc)? It is like saying that I can insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) because I grew up in Malaysia, a Muslim country and thus am an 'insider' to Islam. This is nonsense, for though I am intimately familiar with Islam, I do not subscribe to its beliefs and thus can hardly be considered an 'insider'.

Since when does one need to be an "insider" or believer in a religion or way of thinking in order to criticize it? Would I need to be German to have criticized the Nazi regime? More specifically, would I have had to be a Nazi to criticize their belief system? More to the point, people who subscribe to a system of beliefs, be them religious, social, or political (and, by the way, religion has become both social and political in the last fifty years), tend not to criticize themselves. It is usually up to others, outside of those human-made structures, to criticize them.

The biggest impact this cartoon fracas has had on the UK, has been to demonstrate the sheer bigotry, inconsistency and hypocrisy in the actions of the BBC and the local London police. The BBC, for refusing to broadcast the cartoons despite their vehement stance on defending 'artistic merit' in broadcasting the Jerry Springer Opera just a year earlier in the face of countless letters of protest. The London police, for failing to arrest the protesters who carried placards calling for more July 7th bombings (!!), and dressing up as suicide bombers, clearly inciting others to violence. If these were white Christians, you can bet they'd be locked up in a heart beat.

Regarding the July 7th bombings and those who dressed up as terrorists, they may or may not have, through the act of self-expression, incited violence. What amazes me is that we, as societies, actually take that as an excuse for violence. If I dress up as a Nazi, and parade down the streets of a Jewish town in the United States (this happens over here, and they get the permit to have their marches on First Amendment grounds), and I am attacked by someone in that town, he or she should be locked up. It is no excuse for violence, and we all need to be accountable for our own actions. Is it understandable that someone would want to pound on me? Sure, I would want to pound on me if I did something like that. Does that excuse someone from the courtroom? No. We, in a civilized society, are responsible for ourselves. We do not need the government shielding our feelings for fear that we might act like animals and let the basest of our instincts take over.

 

[dmetzcher]

Mikuro, I disagree with you assessment. You're assuming that there are only Christians in America, which is demonstrably false. If anything, there is a higher number of Christians in poor, '3rd world' countries like Kenya and other parts of Africa, many of whom do not have the 3 luxuries the American Christians have. Yet, we rarely have any such violent protests. Perhaps it has to do with the fundamental teaching of Jesus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Mathew 5:43 - 47

I have, more or less, proven myself an agnostic with most of the comments I have posted to this particular discussion. I was, however, raised Catholic, and I still tend to subscribe to many of those social beliefs, in terms of the treatment of the sick, poor, elderly, and my enemies (though I do not, sadly, always follow them). I think that, throughout history, those who follow the teaching above, or some variation of it, though they themselves may not reap the rewards, accomplish more in the long term.

 

[dmetzcher]

Eh? I don't think my statements assumed that. I was comparing radical American Christians to radical Muslims. (I don't feel I'm fit to comment on Christians in other parts of the world, as my knowledge of their habits is just too low.) The fact that there are not radical Christians in every single place that Christianity thrives doesn't prove an inherent difference between the two religions. If anything, it proves the opposite, since the same as true of Islam. The fact that there are radical Christians — whose behavior, I feel, is fundamentally very similar to the radical Muslims, given the different contexts — does prove (IMHO) that two religions are not so different as many Americans (and Westerners at large, I think) like to pretend.

People are all too willing to project the acts of the Muslim radicals onto all of Islam, apparently without realizing there are Christian equivalents right in their midst (and certainly in history), and they know darn well that their acts shouldn't be projected to all Christians.

One thing came to mind when I found myself nodding in agreement while reading the above two paragraphs: One of the teachings of Islam states that, when a land is conquered, the residents of that land who are either Jewish or Christian are to be left to practice their own religions. Should they convert to Islam, there is no going back. One cannot convert and then de-convert. What strikes me about this is that the Jews and Christians never afforded this same protection to those they conquered. Switch or die, is typically how it went. I think the problem is that we all tend to only know about the religion that we practice, so we fail to understand others. I am certainly not saying that we should learn about all the major religions, though I do find them fascinating, at least, but I am saying that we fail to understand the cultures that drive this world.

Also, others have more or less stated that "if these were Christian cartoons, they would have never burned buildings in the United States or the UK." Perhaps, but why is this. Is there not a greater social issue here? What is, of course, being said in the statement above, is that people of these countries are not civilized. Isn't that what people really want to say, but are afraid to? I think it is.

OK, let's go with that argument for a second. Let's say that the people in these countries where the buildings are burning, at least many of the people in these countries, are uncivilized, for lack of a better word. They solve things through violence. Don't you think that might be because they have no real politics in those countries? Don't you think it might be because they are oppressed, and have only known dictators, who rule by force? Don't you think that the only way that many things get done in those countries is via violent overthrow of the goverment, in order to install a new strongman dictator to run the new terrible government?

All that said, who's fault is that? Theirs? I think not. Those who support dictators are, themselves, dictators. They are just ruling from a distance. Yes, this includes Europe and the United States. We look at the problems in Africa and wonder why there are mass graves. Perhaps because that continent was raped by every western country under the sun.

So now, we are all civilized in the West, and we expect everyone else to "get their acts together". Yes, wouldn't that be nice. It's not going to happen. The solution to radicalism and fundamentalism lies completely in helping other people rise up out of poverty and injustice. Until we can do that, we will be dealing with terrorists, and they will be able to recruit from within those countries from which we turn away when our help is required.

This problem is not a religious one. Religion is just used to cover up the real issue.

 

[CaptainQuark]

Dawkins is as bigoted as the (religious) people he seeks to mock. He is a fundamentalist scientist who is as just as blinkered as religous fanatics.

You won't get too much of an argument out of me on that score, but I do believe that, with that line, he summed up the root of all of today's problems and many of the horrors through history.

Religion, race, tribe. Why do these matter?

"If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

We are all human beings. Surely that counts more than whose method you use to worship God –*because let us not forget that Chistians, Jews and Muslims all worhsip the same God.

In a warped kinda way, Muslims are in the right. Look at it from a computing viewpoint:
• Judaism – God v1.0
• Christianity – God v2.0
- Orthodox – God v2.1a
- Catholic – God v2.1b
- Protestants – God v2.2
• Islam – God v3.0
…etc.

And who runs System 7 these days…?

Now I've probably offended everyone!

 

[dmetzcher]

there were a lot of 'Christians' who seemed to think that anyone using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" was in league with the Devil (okay, that's an exaggeration, but there was an awfully big fuss about it). I think those people are radicals.

No, that's not much of an exaggeration. Seems to happen here more and more each year. Bill O'Reilly, political moron and talking head, made it his mission this HOLIDAY season (and I say HOLIDAY because our Jewish friends also celebrated on the same day this year) to tell the world, which didn't care, how much he hated this trend to "remove god from Christmas". Whatever. With all the other real issues in our country, and ones we are helping to create in other countries, who given a damn whether the person who greets you at Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas". Religious fanatics find these wedge issues and use them to their advantage. O'Reilly isn't even a very religious person, either, and doesn't consider himself to be, as he has said before on Bill Mahr's show, but he used this issue to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans, in order to remind those of us on both sides of the political war (yes, war) that we need to remember to hate each other this HOLIDAY season.

Some use religion because they really believe what they are slinging, while others use it because it is a means to their end. The latter is disgusting.

 

[dmetzcher]

You won't get too much of an argument out of me on that score, but I do believe that, with that line, he summed up the root of all of today's problems and many of the horrors through history.

Religion, race, tribe. Why do these matter?

"If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

We are all human beings. Surely that counts more than whose method you use to worship God –*because let us not forget that Chistians, Jews and Muslims all worhsip the same God.

In a warped kinda way, Muslims are in the right. Look at it from a computing viewpoint:
• Judaism – God v1.0
• Christianity – God v2.0
- Orthodox – God v2.1a
- Catholic – God v2.1b
- Protestants – God v2.2
• Islam – God v3.0
…etc.

And who runs System 7 these days…?

Now I've probably offended everyone!

I love that!
And, that's also how I tend to see these three religions in my head, in terms of the order in which they came, so you just put it into words for me.

 

[Rhisiart]

In a warped kinda way, Muslims are in the right. Look at it from a computing viewpoint:
• Judaism – God v1.0
• Christianity – God v2.0
- Orthodox – God v2.1a
- Catholic – God v2.1b
- Protestants – God v2.2
• Islam – God v3.0
…etc.

Ha. I like this too.

 

[Perseus]

I made a statement about how I cant see Christians burning buildings and flags etc, and I guess that yes, if stripped of all luxury -- and protection -- similar reactions may occur from Christians. I am trying to keep a very open mind. But when I see pictures of a protester burning flags and is wearing a Yankee cap, I really don't know what to make of it. Just the media I guess trying to get me to react a certain way.

 

[Perseus]

Wouldn't Protestants come after Islam? "Protestantism is a movement within Christianity, representing a splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church during the mid-to-late Renaissance in Europe —a period known as the Protestant Reformation." I thought Islam came in 600s...

 

[bbloke]

Whoa, I'm never going to keep up with this thread!

I agree with a lot of sentiments that have been expressed here. I think protection of freedoms is very important and it is too easy to give them up in times of fear (whether from a genuine threat or an exaggerated one, shall we say... ). I also feel that with freedom comes responsibility.

Regarding different religions, I really, truly believe that most believers, of different religions, are not extremists. It's a bit like people at a complaints desk: the ones who kick up the biggest fuss are often the ones that we remember and who staff pay more attention to, ignoring the vast majority of those who were better behaved. I see cooperation time and time again. I've personally seen people from Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and Buddhist faiths work together and also discuss their beliefs in a mutually-interested-rather-than-confrontational way. The Christians have not looked down on the others, either, but felt they could learn something from others and that everyone was doing their best, on their own, personal journeys.

I simply do not believe the line that religions cause all or most of the harm in the world. Believers and non-believers alike are human beings and make the same mistakes; no one is "superior" as a person. That said, religion gets hijacked, twisted, and used to suit political, economic, or personal ends. That does not mean that the religion itself stands for the cause it is being shoe-horned into supporting, nor that the majority of followers are somehow gullible or ill-motivated.

Errrrr, as for Richard Dawkins, no offense CQ (genuinely), but I really have utter disdain for the man and I consider that quote of his to be ridiculous. Speaking as a scientist too, I consider him to be jaw-droppingly rude, arrogant, parochial, and unprofessional. For a scientist, he certainly does not keep an open mind. If I remember rightly, he also was bought the position at Oxford and does not conduct research. He mainly uses his position to get on his soap box about religion... He is working as a Biologist and not a Philosopher or Theologian. I don't think I've ever heard him keep to the subject in hand and not attack religion. I used to listen to what he has to say, but now I see him as a self-parody. If he really believes religion is the root of all evil... well, I don't know where to even begin, I think that line is so detached from reality! To me, he is looking for a simplistic answer to the world's problems, which seems odd for an academic. I thought this article was quite interesting: "The trouble with Richard Dawkins."

 

[fryke]

(answering perseus above...) Yeah, but I think Protestantism is rather 2.1c than 2.2. It's just a variant of Christianism, whereas Islam has changed the whole user-mode level as well as the driver API. So it's still correct. The problem with this metaphor, though, is that _any_ metaphor is always wrong. As I keep preaching: "Talk about the problem instead of _another_ problem."

But to stay with the picture just for another moment: Most people *I* know have long left versions 1-3 behind and are using the open source version they compile themselves, where God is just an optional module.

 

[dmetzcher]

Wouldn't Protestants come after Islam? "Protestantism is a movement within Christianity, representing a splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church during the mid-to-late Renaissance in Europe —a period known as the Protestant Reformation." I thought Islam came in 600s...

Yes, but it is not a different religion from Christianity, but, rather, another form. I'm sure that there are a few Islamic sects that have come after Protestantism as well, and possibly a few Jewish sects. The point was that Judaism came first, then Christianity, then Islam. Beyond that, I don't think we were really saying anything.

 

[dmetzcher]

But to stay with the picture just for another moment: Most people *I* know have long left versions 1-3 behind and are using the open source version they compile themselves, where God is just an optional module.

I'd like to know where I can get that version. One thing that always bothers me about some Christians (and I will pick on them because I know more about them than any other religion) is the belief that only those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior" will be saved (whatever saved is to whomever is talking). I find this so short-sighted and, frankly, arrogant. They have never had a working argument, that I've heard anyway, to the "man on the island" scenario. What about a person that leads a life closer to what Jesus preached, but who never know who Jesus was? The argument could be made that this person lived a better life than the average self-proclaimed "saved" person. But, they would argue that this person deserves to be without God in the afterlife because they didn't say, "yes, I believe in that guy who came 2000 years ago". They think that they deserve a place with God simply because they have made that statement, however. Forget that they may or may not follow any of the teachings of their proclaimed savior.

I find the whole thing to be terribly snooty. It's like a little club. We're all saved, and you are not. It's BS, is what it is. It keeps people in line. It's a turn off for me. If there is an afterlife, and I find myself answering for the things that I did, I will have to say that I would be considered a non-believer. I would also like to be able to say that I led a life that makes up for not blindly following a faith for which the only proof of existance was word of mouth. I want someone to come along and say that living a good life and treating people according to what we refer to as the Golder Rule, is all you need. We won't see that, however, because no one wants to lead a religion without any followers. If they don't a church, they don't need you, and your power is gone. My main problem with the church in which I grew up - the Catholic church - is much the same. I think that, not only does it go against all biblical reference to have a central church power with one man in charge, it was created simply to create power for one group of people. People talk about the Pope as if he were a great man. I wonder just how many starving children in Africa he could feed if he sold his hat. (And don't talk to me about how much the Catholic church does all over the world. If they were following their mentor, which should be Jesus, they'd all be walking around in rags and preaching directly to the people - all of them, not just the lowly priests that they send out to do their dirty work.)

And if that offended anyone...well...I'm sorry that you feel that way. I am not sorry, however, for expressing my views, and I think that was the whole point of this thread in the first place.

 

[CaptainQuark]

Whoa, I'm never going to keep up with this thread!

You and me both!

The Christians have not looked down on the others…

WHAT?!?! C'mon, bbloke! The "If you prick us do we not bleed" quote is from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, which was all about the persecution of the Jews. Then, of course, there's the crusades, where thousands of devout Christians travelled to the Holy Land and committed such barbarities against the Muslims that the Holocaust almost pales into insignificance; there's the Russian Pogroms… need I go on? (The Dawkins quote is looking more and more relevant, do you not think?)

Surely the Christians look down on all other religions, as they believe that the Messiah has already come, whereas Islam and Judaism believe that He is yet to come. Whereas Islam (in theory at least) respects the other two, Christians believe that all the others are condemned to hell as the only way to get to heaven is by believing in Christ!

I simply do not believe the line that religions cause all or most of the harm in the world. … That said, religion gets hijacked, twisted, and used to suit political, economic, or personal ends.

viz Dawkins

(answering perseus above...) Yeah, but I think Protestantism is rather 2.1c than 2.2. It's just a variant of Christianism, whereas Islam has changed the whole user-mode level as well as the driver API.

WOW! When I posted that, I thought that it might bring a fairly tortuous thread to an end, with everyone disgusted by how trite I was being. I didn't expect people to start debating the version numbers of the various religions and denominations!

Just goes to show how wrong we all can be!

 

[bbloke]

You and me both!

Hehehehe

WHAT?!?! C'mon, bbloke! The "If you prick us do we not bleed" quote is from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, which was all about the persecution of the Jews. Then, of course, there's the crusades, where thousands of devout Christians travelled to the Holy Land and committed such barbarities against the Muslims that the Holocaust almost pales into insignificance; there's the Russian Pogroms… need I go on?

OK, hang on, I think my comment was taken out of context. I'm not saying that other groups have not been persecuted, nor have I ever said that religions are not twisted to try to advocate doing so (I've actually mentioned a couple of times that this does happen). What I meant was that we read all about angry Muslim rioters, whereas the vast majority of Muslims I know are very peaceful indeed, and, similarly, we "like" to hear of religious tensions, but what I have experienced in day-to-day life has been more along the lines of cooperation and inter-faith dialog. And, on those terms, I see Christians (from experience) believing we can all learn things from each other, rather than looking down on other groups. So, in essence, I was comparing and contrasting what we tend to hear about (which, granted, does happen too), and what goes on on what we'd hope is a more normal basis, but is less news worthy... That was all.

(The Dawkins quote is looking more and more relevant, do you not think?)

Certainly not... Dawkins tries to make out that religion is the root of evil, and I think that is a very blinkered way of seeing humans. I also think he is genuinely targeting religion, rather than using it as one example of tribalism, as he is so patronizing and so intense when it comes to religion, and yet does not discuss wider issues. The "evil" in us is there regardless of whether or not someone has religious beliefs. One can look at persecution within "atheist states" too, such as some communist regimes, for instance. Persecution can be perpetrated by anyone against any other group, it is not a "religious phenomenon." It is a human failing. This is really my point: those who consider themselves better than others because they do not have a religious faith and, equally, those who think themselves better than others because they do have a religious faith both need to get off their high horses. Coming back to the Shakespeare quote, in a way: exactly, we're all human, we're in this life together, and we are prone to the same failings.

Surely the Christians look down on all other religions, as they believe that the Messiah has already come, whereas Islam and Judaism believe that He is yet to come. Whereas Islam (in theory at least) respects the other two, Christians believe that all the others are condemned to hell as the only way to get to heaven is by believing in Christ!

Some believe that, but, like with any group, there is a broad spectrum of beliefs and ideas. Believers do still think, despite the way many would like to potray them, and that obviously gives rise to a wide range of lines of thought. Certainly wider than you hear about in the media.

WOW! When I posted that, I thought that it might bring a fairly tortuous thread to an end, with everyone disgusted by how trite I was being. I didn't expect people to start debating the version numbers of the various religions and denominations!

Just goes to show how wrong we all can be!

I was a bit surprised that the thread went from cartoons, satire, freedom of speech, international relations, and the like, to debating the merits of religion. Anyway, how about beta versions of upgrades, where one builds on and tries to learn from the past, but where one is happy to explore, make mistakes, and learn through experience?

 

[Mikuro]

I'd like to know where I can get that version. One thing that always bothers me about some Christians (and I will pick on them because I know more about them than any other religion) is the belief that only those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior" will be saved (whatever saved is to whomever is talking). I find this so short-sighted and, frankly, arrogant. They have never had a working argument, that I've heard anyway, to the "man on the island" scenario. What about a person that leads a life closer to what Jesus preached, but who never know who Jesus was?

I agree with this completely....and yet I could still say I'm a Christian (though I don't). This goes back to the problem of communication I was discussing before.

The way I see it, the only real base of Christianity is the Bible. All churches should be treated like libraries — a good learning resource, perhaps, but ultimately it's about what you get out of it. Furthermore, the Bible cannot to be taken ultra-literally in the first place; it's open to interpretation. Even Jesus' words cannot be taken ultra-literally, because of the context.

This is one thing I like about Buddhism. They acknowledge that even what the Buddha said might not be true to you. If he were to explain something to a hundred different people, he would explain it in a hundred very different ways, because that's what it would take to get his point across. But he's not here anymore, so he can't explain it to you. So you have to try to decompile what he said, always bearing in mind the context. In this sense, I really don't consider Buddhism to be about faith at all, at least not in the common religion sense; it's mainly about reason. It's a very intellectually demanding religion.

It's hard to imagine Jesus speaking differently. I mean, do you really think the son of God would ignore the simple nature of language?!? Yet popular Christianity rarely acknowledges this.

But again, popular Christianity is NOT all Christianity. My parents are devout Christians. They have been all my life. They don't believe that non-believers are auto-condemned to hell. I'm not sure they even believe in hell. They've never been real church-goers. But they are most definitely Christians.


Let me put it another way: Perhaps it IS right for people to say that non-believers are auto-condemned. If that's what it takes to get people walking down the right path, then isn't that the right thing to say? But that doesn't make it true for you. It may be true for many people that their only hope for salvation is Christianity, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone.

(Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think Jesus ever said anything of the sort. I think that idea pretty much came from the mere men running churches. So....grains of salt for everyone! )

 

[fryke]

Of course, if your _starting_ point is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God is omnipotent, then language and context doesn't matter and what Jesus said is simply The Truth™ – no mistakes possible. At all. And if _that's_ your starting point, many things suddenly change.
Since God, in *my* opinion, is a product of man's imagination ("there must _be_ a God, therefore, there _is_ a God..."), Jesus Christ –*even if he has lived and spoken to people, even if he has done "miracles" etc. – was never the son of God (since that's only an imaginary product) and therefore his words were not "the truth", although it might or might not have been close to "it", should it even exist.

But we're quite off-topic by now, anyway, aren't we.

 

[Mikuro]

Of course, if your _starting_ point is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and God is omnipotent, then language and context doesn't matter and what Jesus said is simply The Truth™ – no mistakes possible. At all.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here at all. Language is language. If you believe in God, you almost surely believe that most of God's thoughts and ideas cannot be expressed well in human language.

The way 'the truth' is expressed can never change what 'the truth' is, no matter where you're coming from. I certainly don't think that 'the truth' is defined by what anyone — even God — says. There's a big gap between ideas and the expression of those ideas.

To put it in techie terms, which seems to be popular (and oh so amusing ), it's like saying that the compression artifacts on a DVD are the movie, because that's the way the authority behind the movie presented it. But if the authority had a better way to present it, those compression artifacts wouldn't exist. Communication always entails compromise — because human language is a lossy codec.

 

[dmetzcher]

I'm not sure I follow your logic here at all. Language is language. If you believe in God, you almost surely believe that most of God's thoughts and ideas cannot be expressed well in human language.

The way 'the truth' is expressed can never change what 'the truth' is, no matter where you're coming from. I certainly don't think that 'the truth' is defined by what anyone — even God — says. There's a big gap between ideas and the expression of those ideas.

To put it in techie terms, which seems to be popular (and oh so amusing ), it's like saying that the compression artifacts on a DVD are the movie, because that's the way the authority behind the movie presented it. But if the authority had a better way to present it, those compression artifacts wouldn't exist. Communication always entails compromise — because human language is a lossy codec.

If I believed in a god or gods, I would probably have to admit that human beings are nothing less than arrogant in their attempts to understand such a being. Given our lack of knowledge about most of the things around us, I think that saying we know anything about a god or gods is simply lies. And I assure you that even though scientists have learned a great deal in the few thousand years that we've had science passed down from generation to generation, we still know only a fraction of what is out there to know.

I also tend to agree with fryke, and feel that humanity invented gods, and then a single god, in order to explain things in the universe. I also think it had something to do with a ruling class wanting power over the people, as it seems that most religions, past and present, had their priesthood, or some equivalent, to whom everyone else looked for guidance. Monotheism, frankly, is very new in terms of the time it's been around, and it just another idea in a string of religious ideas since humankind first looked for answers.

To those who have said that religion is not the root of all evil, I'll agree with you. Two things are the root of all evil, and the recent events in the middle east in response to a few cartoons drawn in bad taste, illustrate my point. The two most destructive forces in this world have been, and always will be, poverty and a lack of education. Now, for the dictator, these two things are his best friend. Keep the people uneducated (frankly, stupid), and poor. Then tell them that their financial problems are because of this or that, and that you have the answer. Give them a boogyman, and you're set. It's a blueprint for control.

We see this here in the United States. Many people were completely against the current President. Many people were against his policies. Polls showed him behind, even on the day of the election. The key to winning in a situation like that, and both parties have used it in the past, is to tell the voters, who are typically uneducated regarding all the details, that the boogyman is the other guy. "He won't do for you what I will. He helped create your problems. He will not fix them. Vote for me, and you will be safe. Vote for him, and you will almost certainly die in a terrorist attack." This is the same sort of rhetoric that the leaders of other dicatorships, like Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea use all the time to keep their own people in line, and ensure that they have their loyalty. All leaders do this, in every country. We, as human beings, know how to do it the moment we gain our social skills as children. It's no different than the school yard. I don't think that we ever really grow up, we just get better at being/appearing more mature. The key is making sure that you are educated enough to smell the sh*t being shoveled around, so you can make choices to better suit your own needs.

I'll say it again...
The Middle East is full of uneducated kids (boys and girls) who are told that life is great and that God will love them if they behave this way or that way. Often, this way or that way is just the way that their dictator wants them to behave. These cartoons might not seem like a lot to us, but to those who have nothing other than their God, and a life in heaven with him to look forward to, they are a big deal. These issues will continue to matter long into the future until we start realizing what needs to be done to fix this, and invading other countries, however much we might like to see a particular dictator strung up by his neck, is not the answer. We miss the point because we have everything, and they have nothing. Is that our fault? Some say yes, some say no. I say that, as "leaders of the free world", or whatever stupid title we give ourselves, it is our responsibility to help others, even at our own expense. That's the price of living in a free society. That's the price of having wealth. That's the price of having security. That's the price of having a conscience. That's the price of keeping your soul.