2 of 3
2
How would you answer?
Posted: 05 April 2007 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

OK…  I assume you are talking about those who believe in “The Word of God”, esp those who believe it is inerrant?

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 05:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2007-03-31
[quote author=“Mriana”]OK…  I assume you are talking about those who believe in “The Word of God”, esp those who believe it is inerrant?

Yes, but you can use any religion or spiritual group. I use Christian, and the bible because I did that for a while.  :evil:

 Signature 

WoodGuard from Canada
I am 95% skeptic, 4% Believer and 1% unknown.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 April 2007 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11
[quote author=“Mriana”]Islam started from a dream. Mahommed had a dream, he wrote it all down as a vision, and Islam began, so I was told by a prof.  What a way to start a new religion.  rolleyes  Well, if you want 72 virgins, that’s one way to get them.

In one of the six or seven canonical books of ahadith, a martyr for the cause of Allah would be rewarded in Paradise with 72 “black eyed virgins.” The story is suspect, as it is in an isolated hadith, and one which is not found in al-Bukhari or in the Qur’an.

Although it is contained in one of the canonical books, it does not necessarily follow that the tradition is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins

Nothing in the Koran specifically states that the faithful are allotted 72 virgins apiece. For this elaboration we turn to the hadith, traditional sayings traced with varying degrees of credibility to Muhammad. Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, “The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby.”
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/011214.html

http://www.citizensoldier.org/72virgins.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 02:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

Oh, a thread without spam!  We were hit hard last night.  :(

Well, if they want 72 Black eyed virgins, they could find them on Betazed, but I don’t think they would appreciate them since Betazed is a Matriarchial society.  LOL

Seriously though, those that take the Koran seriously, what reward do “good” women get in “Heaven”?  Doesn’t sound good for women at all.  It makes it sound like women still get a raw deal among the literalist of Muslims.  How is that “heaven”?  And I thought Paul was bad.  Woe To the Women!

Seems to me a futile effort and I still believe it’s humans that make or break Earth, which can be heaven or hell depending on what humans do.  I feel sorry for the women who are Islamic, because they get a raw deal all the way around- esp if they are married to a man who is a literalist.  Don’t these women realize that if they want anything good in life, they have to work for equality now in order to make life better?  They obviously aren’t going to get it in some sort of afterlife- not according to how the Quran reads at least and if we are right and there is no afterlife, then they’ve blowen it all and have gotten nothing either way they go.

You would think these women would wise up and start fighting for equality now while they still can, because they won’t get after they are dead.  They say they are happy under oppression, but I don’t see how they could be, esp when men get all the promises for a good life after death.  Christian women seem to get a little bit of a better deal, but not by much.  Either way, they still seem to be working toward nothing.  Now working for equality in the here and now, that’s working towards something.

Which reminds me, why is it women have to have modesty in order to keep the men in check?  They say men have no self-control and it’s all on the women to cover themselves, even their hair because that turns men on too   rolleyes , just so they don’t get raped. It’s all on the women again to make sure everyone stays in control of themselves.  It makes no sense.  I still say, women get an extremely raw deal with Islam.  :(

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 03:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17
[quote author=“Mriana”]Islam started from a dream. Mahommed had a dream, he wrote it all down as a vision, and Islam began, so I was told by a prof.  What a way to start a new religion.  rolleyes  Well, if you want 72 virgins, that’s one way to get them.

Actually, Mriana, this probably isn’t true either. This is similar to people talking about how Paul was converted by a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Both of these claims are themselves probably just later inventions of other people. People back then thought that dreams were a viable source of divine information. Paul, also, never said anything about a vision on the road to Damascus, that is in the book of Acts, which was not written by Paul, but a much later Christian.

In reality, Muhammad may never have existed at all, and if he did, we know basically nothing at all about him. The Koran almost certainly has nothing to do with him, it is a collection of various tribal laws and poems and whatnot from the region that were later collected together into a book in order to consolidate tribal power by later rulers, using the name of Muhammad to bring authority to the work.

There is no biographical information on Muhammad in the Koran, and only a few mentions of him. All of the “information” about Muhammad comes from much later writings called the Hadith, which are basically completely spurious and worthless as historical resources.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 04:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

I know some Sunni Muslims and they say that Jesus was never crucified- that he ran and someone else was crucified instead.  The man who was crucified was so beaten that he was unrecognizable.  Jesus went on to live a happy life and ascended in heaven later.  Muhammed ascended and then returned back to earth.  He then lived to preach Allah’s word until he died and ascended to heaven once again.  rolleyes  I don’t understand it.  It all seems like a bunch of mumble jumble to me.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

[quote author=“rationalrevolution”] Paul, also, never said anything about a vision on the road to Damascus, that is in the book of Acts, which was not written by Paul, but a much later Christian.

I believe it is believed Acts was possibly written by a companion of Paul. The early camp places the time of writing around 65 A.D. while the consensus seems to be around 80 A.D.

Pauls own writing about his conversion is sparse but he does allude to it some of his own writings:

1 Corinthians 9
“Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?”

Galatians 1:11-12


Needless to say, it’s religion and not very convincing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

From what I have that (65 C.E. at least) seems to be correct.  Mark came next around 70 CE at least, Matthew around 90 CE, Luke around 100 CE, and John after that, with Acts following that.  None of them were eyewitness accounts, not even Paul.  Those are rough dates and some Theologians and alike place them even later, but still in the same order.

I never said anything about Paul and Damcus, Rational, just that he was bad.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

OP?  I’m not sure what that is.  If I knew maybe I could say nothing or it does somehow, but I have a feeling that the answer is nothing.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2007 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Opening Post wink

In Forum etiquette it is generally the OP that sets the topic and one should not stray too far from that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2007 01:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

I’m use to boards that let the thread roam where it may, until it dies out.  Sorry.  :(

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2007 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

No worry. CFI tires to keep things to topic. It is also sort of etiquette in the skeptic boards I visit, kind of respect for the original poster.

ETA: FYI I do not speak on behalf of CFI.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2007 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I think the original post should be discussed until it sort of runs out, then the discussion can lead to other themes.  It’s worthwhile to keep on the first topic as long as it has vitality, but I believe going off on another tack is certainly acceptable if the earlier one had been exhausted.


By the way, cgallaga, re your end quote from Ken Norris.  Was he the oceanographer?  I was curious because he was my lab teaching assistant when I took Zoology 1 at UCLA in 1949.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2007 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Yeah the same. Pretty cool.

Both quotes are from the farcical fiction book Fluke , by Christopher Moore. Ken Norris was a technical advisor.

While I agree that conversations in real time are organic and that the flow seems natural to those participating, the problem with straying from the OP is that future new members/viewers get easily confused, lost, and may give up participation. It is a small thing to start a new thread, and it does keep things relatively tidy.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2