Immigration Is Islam a noble religion?

[Carsten F Hansen]

Catherine Ray, belives Islam is a noble religion. What do you think?

Sorry I can't link, forum rule seems to dictate, I have to have atleast 10 posts before I can do that. But Google Catherine Ray and islam noble.

 

[sparkey]

Is this the link you are talking about?: http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/150420_01en.htm

I couldn't find any news about it in English, but found this Danish report:
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/udland/2015-04-20-eu-brutale-is-henrettelser-er-misbrug-af-nobel-religion

To me, it's inoffensive PR-speak. The EU isn't about to say "This violence clearly results from modern extremist elements within a religion that has harnessed violence as a means to its own spread since its earliest days." Although true in some sense, calling Islam itself anything but noble would do more harm than good. Besides, there's some truth in there if we're speaking of the potential of the best of its followers. Islam is a huge religion with many respectable practitioners, and encouraging their ideas to spread at the expense of the extremists would most certainly be noble.

 

[julia90]

I M beginning to think no.
However I ve never read the curan.

Dhimma concept alone is extremely negative.. To ban islam forever from the world

 

[Maleth]

I M beginning to think no.
However I ve never read the curan.

Dhimma concept alone is extremely negative.. To ban islam forever from the world

Do not be impressed by theologians and people who are obsessed by lots of writing and a multitude of interpretations.

The Koran is a photo copy of the old testament (the Jewish Torah) and secular Muslims like secular Jews try to give a thousand useless interpretation how to soften the violence, racism and hatred the book contains. Fundamentalists will alway be quick to say its the word of god and all the savagery should not be questioned and taken literally (mostly Deuteronomy but other books). Christianity has an advantage because historical Jesus tried to change the horrors of the old books (New covenant or pact with god) example turn your cheek visa vi Moses Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth, Marry one woman instead of the Moses 4 wives, making the religion international and not just to the chosen few and so on. So historical Jesus was killed for blasphemy as he always attacked the scribes and pharisees who were like Jehovawitness always quoting from the books what pleases them.

Having said that the irony that so far Christians have killed more people in the name of Religion then any other, however as it has been pointed out that we are in 2015 and religious fundamentalists have no place in a modern society because in reality the Psyche is little different to Nazism (which is banned anyway) and other totalitarian mindsets. Being offended is not enough to shut people up to face logic reality and the truth.

 

[LeBrok]

Do not be impressed by theologians and people who are obsessed by lots of writing and a multitude of interpretations.

The Koran is a photo copy of the old testament (the Jewish Torah) and secular Muslims like secular Jews try to give a thousand useless interpretation how to soften the violence, racism and hatred the book contains. Fundamentalists will alway be quick to say its the word of god and all the savagery should not be questioned and taken literally (mostly Deuteronomy but other books). Christianity has an advantage because historical Jesus tried to change the horrors of the old books (New covenant or pact with god) example turn your cheek visa vi Moses Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth, Marry one woman instead of the Moses 4 wives, making the religion international and not just to the chosen few and so on. So historical Jesus was killed for blasphemy as he always attacked the scribes and pharisees who were like Jehovawitness always quoting from the books what pleases them.

I agree. He was more of egalitarian, all inclusive, peace loving, all humanity loving man. A Renaissance man, Social activist, perhaps even a communist in heart. Unfortunately, he didn't go far enough to be a universal hero of all times. He completely missed a boat to have strong antislavery stand, to proclaim equality of women, or address homosexuality issue. Perhaps, he had strong views on these subjects, but was afraid to voice them, or they were deleted by apostolic or church as inconvenient. Whatever the reason of his silence was, how this could happen if he was a true son of omnipotent god?

 

[Maleth]

I agree. He was more of egalitarian, all inclusive, peace loving, all humanity loving man. A Renaissance man, Social activist, perhaps even a communist in heart. Unfortunately, he didn't go far enough to be a universal hero of all times. He completely missed a boat to have strong antislavery stand, to proclaim equality of women, or address homosexuality issue. Perhaps, he had strong views on these subjects, but was afraid to voice them, or they were deleted by apostolic or church as inconvenient. Whatever the reason of his silence was, how this could happen if he was a true son of omnipotent god?

There is lots between the lines to also tackle those issues to show the intention of historic Jesus compared to the old dogma. In regards to equality of women remember he appeared first to Mary Magelene not any of the all male apostles also the stopping of the stoning of her is quite significant (and anti Moses teachings). Both his mother Mary and Magdalene are known to have preached and were part of the new movment.

In regards to homosexuality the Eunuch statement is quite a strong one (considering the psycie of the time) and the lack of condemnation says lots in itself. In regards to slavery he has put a Samaritan women (who Jews looked down upon) at par with other faithfuls.It was Peter that made the slavery acceptance remarks. Paul of Tarsus of course is quoted quite alot in regards to the degradation of women and homosexuals but remember Paul of Tarsus killed the first apostles (Stephen) and never met the historic Jesus himself, but some Christians seem to quote Paul of Tarsus who persecuted the early Christians much more then Jesus himself.

 

[oriental]

According to some sources that I read long ago (maybe newspaper articles) that when Jesus was crucified his advice as per the Gospels was to head for the hills when the Son of Man appears. The followers of Jesus left Judea and spread all over the Mid East including Midian i.e. Arabia in Media.

http://atozmomm.com/tag/bsf-moses-lesson-2/

http://fiveriverschurchplant.blogspot.ca/2011/03/exodus-171-7-grumbling-in-wilderness.html

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/medina

Mohammed, the Prophet, as yet a young man was influenced by these Jews who fled Judea and provided Mohammed with the Gospels. At first these Jews (probably Essenes) thought Mohammed was the "chosen" messiah or prophet but were disillusioned. This is how Islam came to accept the New Testament. The version that Mohammed got was probably a sketchy version as these Jews fled Judea so it explains how the Quran's version of the Gospel doesn't quite fit the Christian version. Islam thus accepts the New Testament.

 

[Maleth]

According to some sources that I read long ago (maybe newspaper articles) that when Jesus was crucified his advice as per the Gospels was to head for the hills when the Son of Man appears. The followers of Jesus left Jusea and spread all over the Mid East including Midian i.e. Arabia in Media.

http://atozmomm.com/tag/bsf-moses-lesson-2/

http://fiveriverschurchplant.blogspot.ca/2011/03/exodus-171-7-grumbling-in-wilderness.html

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/medina

Mohammed, the Prophet, as yet a young man weas influenced by these Jews who fled Judea and provided Mohammed with the Gospels. At first these Jews (probably Essenes) thought Mohammed was the "chosen" messiah or prophet but were disillusioned. This is how Islam came to accept the New Testament. The version that Mohammed got was probably a sketchy version as these Jews fled Judea so it explains how the Quran's version of the Gospel doesn't quite fit the Christian version. Islam thus accepts the New Testament.

Islam accepts Jesus as one of the prophets and his mother is also mentioned as Myriam but the Koran teaches nothing about the gospel of Jesus. It emphasis the law of moses and revives the book of deutronomy, Mohamed preached stoning of homosexuals and stoning of adulators women (whatever that means) it also preaches of conversion by the sword especially visa vi pagans and non believers. (all part and parcel of the old testament) Its all anti gospel teaching and arrived 600 years after Jesus. Muslims perceive Christians as lost and misguided and have taken religion back to the days of the pharisees the same people that Jesus spend a good chunk of his time arguing with while they tried to fish him for blasphemy which in the end they did

 

[Fire Haired14]

There is lots between the lines to also tackle those issues to show the intention of historic Jesus compared to the old dogma. In regards to equality of women remember he appeared first to Mary Magelene not any of the all male apostles also the stopping of the stoning of her is quite significant (and anti Moses teachings). Both his mother Mary and Magdalene are known to have preached and were part of the new movment.

The idea of gender roles and gender equality we're taught is a modern thing pushed by feminist, and is unrealistic. It has a false believe that gender equality means men and women have to be exactly the same, and especially that women have to be aggressive and powerful. Mary Magdalene and Jesus's mother being involved, etc., wasn't because Jesus was about "gender equality' it was simply random. It had to do with them being individuals not being women. No one in 0ad or whatever was thinking "I'm going to empower women".

In regards to homosexuality the Eunuch statement is quite a strong one (considering the psycie of the time) and the lack of condemnation says lots in itself. In regards to slavery he has put a Samaritan women (who Jews looked down upon) at par with other faithfuls.It was Peter that made the slavery acceptance remarks. Paul of Tarsus of course is quoted quite alot in regards to the degradation of women and homosexuals but remember Paul of Tarsus killed the first apostles (Stephen) and never met the historic Jesus himself, but some Christians seem to quote Paul of Tarsus who persecuted the early Christians much more then Jesus himself.

Why put political issues of the 21st century on 1st century people?

 

[Maleth]

The idea of gender roles and gender equality we're taught is a modern thing pushed by feminist, and is unrealistic. It has a false believe that gender equality means men and women have to be exactly the same, and especially that women have to be aggressive and powerful. Mary Magdalene and Jesus's mother being involved, etc., wasn't because Jesus was about "gender equality' it was simply random. It had to do with them being individuals not being women. No one in 0ad or whatever was thinking "I'm going to empower women"


Why put political issues of the 21st century on 1st century people?

of course the truth is according to unquestionable religious text all the suffering of human kind is the fault of Eve a woman who ate from the tree of life and god got so angry because of this woman that humans will be cursed with brambles pain in delivering offspring and the men have to work hard for a living. This is what a women made all mankind go through. Dont these modern thing feminist know anthing about the truth?

What was so specialwith 1st century people?

 

[Maleth]

oh and i forgot to mention that this eating from this tree of life by this wicked eve happend some 6000 years ago as believed by some main stream religions and some sects. The out of Africa theory and human migration is an evil mens invention

 

[LeBrok]

and the men have to work hard for a living.

Wait a minute. Working hard is a curse? We should advertise it to all unemployed people! Greeks, at the moment, are the most blessed Europeans, according to the bible.

 

[LeBrok]

There is lots between the lines to also tackle those issues to show the intention of historic Jesus compared to the old dogma. In regards to equality of women remember he appeared first to Mary Magelene not any of the all male apostles also the stopping of the stoning of her is quite significant (and anti Moses teachings). Both his mother Mary and Magdalene are known to have preached and were part of the new movment.

In regards to homosexuality the Eunuch statement is quite a strong one (considering the psycie of the time) and the lack of condemnation says lots in itself. In regards to slavery he has put a Samaritan women (who Jews looked down upon) at par with other faithfuls.It was Peter that made the slavery acceptance remarks. Paul of Tarsus of course is quoted quite alot in regards to the degradation of women and homosexuals but remember Paul of Tarsus killed the first apostles (Stephen) and never met the historic Jesus himself, but some Christians seem to quote Paul of Tarsus who persecuted the early Christians much more then Jesus himself.

I absolutely agree, what I was getting at is that it should have been stated very decisively, almost in a form of "God's constitution", commandments, ideological manifesto. Instead, Jesus was scared or unable to put it in coherent program, and left his followers to guess and interpret his teachings till today.
Jesus, as a great humanist, yes. Jesus as the son of God, I don't think so.

 

[Fire Haired14]

of course the truth is according to unquestionable religious text all the suffering of human kind is the fault of Eve a woman who ate from the tree of life and god got so angry because of this woman that humans will be cursed with brambles pain in delivering offspring and the men have to work hard for a living. This is what a women made all mankind go through. Dont these modern thing feminist know anthing about the truth?

What was so specialwith 1st century people?

Thinking that the story of Adam and Eve is sexiest is looking at an ancient story with 21st century eyes. Anyone who says it is sexiest was obviously looking for sexism. I don't think it's sexiest at all.

There's nothing special about 1st century people.

I didn't fully explain myself. Of course there's truth to what feminist say. Women have been miss treated, and should be given more opportunity to be leaders, etc. I'm just describing the bad side, which is the idea gender equality means "50/50", and judging the essence of people according to their gender instead of as individuals.

Feminism probably has little to do with the early church. When Jesus chose a woman or whatever it probably had more to do with her as an individual than him making a political statement.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I absolutely agree, what I was getting at is that it should have been stated very decisively, almost in a form of "God's constitution", commandments, ideological manifesto. Instead, Jesus was scared or unable to put it in coherent program, and left his followers to guess and interpret his teachings till today.
Jesus, as a great humanist, yes. Jesus as the son of God, I don't think so.

If you don't trust the accuracy of what the Bible says about Jesus, why think he was a humanist? I don't get it. People are putting their ideals on Jesus.

 

[LeBrok]

If you don't trust the accuracy of what the Bible says about Jesus, why think he was a humanist? I don't get it. People are putting their ideals on Jesus.

Why do you think he wasn't a humanist?

 

[Maleth]

I absolutely agree, what I was getting at is that it should have been stated very decisively, almost in a form of "God's constitution", commandments, ideological manifesto. Instead, Jesus was scared or unable to put it in coherent program, and left his followers to guess and interpret his teachings till today.
Jesus, as a great humanist, yes. Jesus as the son of God, I don't think so.

I know what you mean, however politics and Religion were intertwined and one thing. It was the ONLY medium that one could get through to people (Jews in this case) without being put to death for heresy. Anyone who went against the flow would have been killed for blasphemy and punished by death. It was a similar or even dare to say worse scenario then the situation in Iran or Saudi Arabia these days. So for what Jesus preached it is even surprising how he had lasted 3 years to set off a new community with a new covenant (new pact with god). Remember that there was a time that he was chased to be stoned and ran away half way of his preaching period.

Being straight forward and put things clear in a coherent program would have meant instant death. This also explains why he is also been quoted to say I have not come to change a point or a coma from the old books, (a good way to buy time) when in fact there are a number of teachings that are clearly contradictory to the old teachings.

 

[Maleth]

Feminism probably has little to do with the early church. When Jesus chose a woman or whatever it probably had more to do with her as an individual than him making a political statement.

It is very clear that Jesus has covered intentionally a good number of political statements and bold changes to the dogma of the time. 2000 years ago is not a too long time ago considering the existence of menkind (MENkind?) ok I prefer to say humans. Many situation were pretty similar to what we have today.

 

[Angela]

If you don't trust the accuracy of what the Bible says about Jesus, why think he was a humanist? I don't get it. People are putting their ideals on Jesus.

Anyone who would create such pictures has never read the New Testament in its entirety.

There is an aeon of difference between Jesus and Mohammed.

 

[LeBrok]

I know what you mean, however politics and Religion were intertwined and one thing. It was the ONLY medium that one could get through to people (Jews in this case) without being put to death for heresy. Anyone who went against the flow would have been killed for blasphemy and punished by death. It was a similar or even dare to say worse scenario then the situation in Iran or Saudi Arabia these days. So for what Jesus preached it is even surprising how he had lasted 3 years to set off a new community with a new covenant (new pact with god). Remember that there was a time that he was chased to be stoned and ran away half way of his preaching period.

Being straight forward and put things clear in a coherent program would have meant instant death. This also explains why he is also been quoted to say I have not come to change a point or a coma from the old books, (a good way to buy time) when in fact there are a number of teachings that are clearly contradictory to the old teachings.

Exactly. That was my proof that Jesus wasn't a divine person. He couldn't exercise his god like powers, or wasn't shielded by god's will. Instead he had to behave more like a politician hiding his real convictions, just to survive.