jamesieboy
|
Was Jesus a more peaceful prophet than Mohammed?Discuss.
Mohammed married his eight-year-old niece. Amongst others.
Jesus never got married. He just suffered..on the cross..because of the
treachery of the Jews.
B*****y Israelis again.
|
Scott2006
|
I think this should be in the Celestial Politics section rather than Global Politics...
Trying to grapple with the level you're aiming for...
Jesus wore sandals - he may even have wore socks with his sandals - and some fashionistas think that is an unforgiveable sin...
|
Alasdair
|
Aye, Jamsie and Mary was raped by God ... what's your point?
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
Re: Was Jesus a more peaceful prophet than Mohammed? | jamesieboy wrote: |
Jesus never got married. |
Do you know that for sure?
|
Alasdair
|
LP, Jamsie's a teacher ... we should just take his word for it, afterall he's used to people just believing whatever he tells them 
|
jamesieboy
|
We don't know too much about Mohammed. Surely if eventually we become informed then it should be done in an impartial way.
In other words we should know about Mohammed warts and all. How many wives did he have? What age were they? What was his philosophy?
Did he advocate violence? Did he kill anybody? Why is it such a closely kept secret?
Jesus turned water into wine. And that's good enough for me. Slainthe!
|
Holebender
|
Was one made-up prophet more violent than another?
Who cares?
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Was one made-up prophet more violent than another? |
Are you seriously suggesting Jesus and Mohammed are fictional?
In fact, nothing would surprise me about you. Ironic how you were calling me deluded in another thread, but then again you've surrounded yourself with the equally deluded in order to allow your ridiculous nonsense to blend into the background.
Well done.
|
Dave Coull
|
"Then Jesus went into the temple, threw out everyone who was selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the moneychangers' tables and the chairs of those who sold doves." - The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 21:12. "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" - The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 10:34. | Holebender wrote: | | Was one made-up prophet more violent than another? |
I think there is fairly strong evidence which suggests that both Jesus and Mohamed existed as historical figures. As to their status as prophets and to what extent they were personally violent or non-violent, that is more debatable. | jamesieboy wrote: | | Jesus never got married. |
| Lord Pitsligo wrote: | | Do you know that for sure? |
The technology available to archaeologists, dendrochronologists, linguists, and other scientific disciplines relating to history, is progressing by leaps and bounds, so all sorts of things are becoming clearer than they used to be, and there is every reason to think that future progress with the technologies available will continue to make our view of the past clearer. However, at present, nobody really knows for sure whether Jesus was married or not. But there is some quite strong evidence from Christian scriptures, from the apocrypha, from other "gnostic" Gospels, and other near-contemporary Christian and non-Christian writings, as well as from archaeology etc, which appears to suggest that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene. An inconvenient fact which was hushed up by some of his misogynistic followers who had decided on an all-male priesthood.
|
Holebender
|
Of course they are fictional. Don't tell me you actually believe that one is the product of a deity impregnating a virgin, who was nailed up on a cross and died, and then was physically resurrected, while the other wrote a book which was dictated to him word for word by a deity! Remember, the question is about prophets, not men who may or may not have lived in the Middle East 1400 or 2000 years ago.
|
Alasdair
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Of course they are fictional. Don't tell me you actually believe that one is the product of a deity impregnating a virgin, who was nailed up on a cross and died, and then was physically resurrected, while the other wrote a book which was dictated to him word for word by a deity! Remember, the question is about prophets, not men who may or may not have lived in the Middle East 1400 or 2000 years ago. |
You don't need to believe the myth and magic that some do to believe that the people themselves actually existed, or, at the very least are characters based on real people.
|
Holebender
|
Real people is one thing, prophets is quite another. The thread is about prophets, and for people to be prophets you have to have all the "myth and magic" which goes along with it.
Besides... are there any contemporary records of either of them existing?
|
agentmancuso
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Besides... are there any contemporary records of either of them existing? |
I was going to say that the earliest external (i.e. non-Christian) written record was in Josephus, writing about a generation after the crucifiction. But having just checked, it turns out that the authenticity of those passages is now disputed by scholars.
But even so, I doubt really think that serious historians dispute the existence of the historical figure of Joshua ben Joseph. It seems likely also that he was regarded as the Messiah (i.e. political saviour) of the Jews by some people at least.
As for 'prophet', it depends what you mean. Reductionism is merely another form of over-literal belief.
|
Jimbo
|
jamesieboy wrote:
| Quote: | Mohammed married his eight-year-old niece. Amongst others.
Jesus never got married. He just suffered..on the cross..because of the
treachery of the Jews. |
Have you any proof that they existed in the first place?
If Jesus and Muhammad were alive today, one claiming to be the son of a god and the other claiming he speaks to a god, would you believe them, or would you regard them as a pair of nutters?
|
Jimbo
|
Dave Coull wrote:
| Quote: | | An inconvenient fact which was hushed up by some of his misogynistic followers who had decided on an all-male priesthood. |
You make some good points Dave.
Much was also decided on that subject at the Council of Nicea in 325.
Many decisions were made at that council as to which doctrines and gospels were to be considered acceptable and which doctrines and gospels were to be discarded due to being considered heretical.
Hypothetically speaking, had the council been predominantly Celtic led as opposed to Roman, many of the misogynistic decisions reached at would not have been passed.
|
jamesieboy
|
and Mohammed?
What do you all know about this guy? Are we allowed to talk about this in a public forum or are we all going to be subject to a fatwa and a resulting jihad??
|
Holebender
|
I don't see anybody shutting you up.
|
Dave Coull
|
| jamesieboy wrote: | and Mohammed?
What do you all know about this guy? |
Not an awful lot would seem to be the answer. For instance, you say he married his niece. You haven't proved yourself to be the most reliable source of information, but, if what you say should turn out to be correct for a change, well, I didn't know that. Mind you, that sort of thing went on a lot in bygone days, amongst Christians and Jews as well as amongst Muslims. And as for her age - in Berwick-on-Tweed, on the 17th of July 1328, Joanna, sister of King Edward the Third of England, was married to David, the son of King Robert the Bruce of Scotland. The princess was six years old when she got married. It wasn't just in Arabia marriage could happen at what seems to us like a shockingly young age. Of course the marriage was probably not actually consummated until quite a few years later. The same is probably also true in Mohammed's case.
|
jamesieboy
|
The point I'm trying to make, holender, is that there is a pc lobby out there which tries to impose censorship on certain issues. How dare they take our free speech away!
One of these issues is the subject of Islam as they (a large number of muslims) seem to be particularly sensitive on a number of things, like cartoons of Mohammed and books by Salman Rushdie.
I may be wrong, but I find that certain religions show a lot more tolerance.
Remember The Last Temptation of Christ in the 1980's? There were some protests but nothing like the Jyllands Post cartoon. The Life of Brian was also deemed as offensive to many Christians but there were few protests and they got over it.
My aim is to provoke discussion which I'm glad to say I've done and that's due, to give them credit, the fellow contributors.
|
Holebender
|
Take a look at how some American Christians reacted to the films mentioned, or to John Lennon claiming the Beatles were more popular than Christ. Just because Europe has become more secular, it is no reason for supposing Christianity is any less violent in reacting to perceived threats than Islam is.
The problem is religion, not any particular brand of religion; the more secular the society the less likely religious-based violence is to occur. Allow religion the upper hand and we're back to burning heretics and witches, not to mention Sharia Law.
|
Shagpile
|
| jamesieboy wrote: | I may be wrong, but I find that certain religions show a lot more tolerance.
Remember The Last Temptation of Christ in the 1980's? There were some protests but nothing like the Jyllands Post cartoon. The Life of Brian was also deemed as offensive to many Christians but there were few protests and they got over it. |
Here's anotherone the 'Church' wants to ban. "Zeitgeist" google it watch it then let me know what you think.
|
Stevie
|
A prophet produces a cult.
A cult produces a church.
Time and brainwashing(by the age of 6) produces a religion.
|
linoleum
|
1 mans delusion is a delusion.
10 mens delusions is a religion.
no time for god, mohammed or who ever. religion is for the weak of mind and who wish to be controlled.
mind you a lot of muslims seem to go on murderous jihads in the name of mohammed.not so with the god variety.
mohammed must have been the angier of the 2.
|
Shagpile
|
| linoleum wrote: | 1 mans delusion is a delusion.
10 mens delusions is a religion.
no time for god, mohammed or who ever. religion is for the weak of mind and who wish to be controlled. |
You did watch Zeitgeist?
| Quote: | mind you a lot of muslims seem to go on murderous jihads in the name of mohammed.not so with the god variety.
mohammed must have been the angier of the 2. |
Heard of The Crusades?
|
jamesieboy
|
Aye but that was then.
This is now - 21st century.
|
Shagpile
|
| jamesieboy wrote: | Aye but that was then.
This is now - 21st century. |
And what's it going to be like in the 22nd century if your mindset prevails?
|
Rinty
|
Neither Jeus nor Mohammed live in the 21st century.
We know very little about Jesus, who lived in 1st century, only a handful of accounts written well after the event so we dont know whether he was peaceful or even if he was a prophet.
Mohamed (7th century) was also a political leader and led battles against other tribes and attacked Mecca, so we know, as an individual, he wasnt all that peaceful really.
How people interpret their teachings and whether they use that to justify war and violence is so varied that it is impossible to compare. The Crusades were a violent interpretaion of Jesus teachings more than athousand years after his death. So it didnt matter whetherJesus was peaceful or not, the popes at that time were not and their crusaders waged war on their enemeies, whatever religion they were.
We might as well ask Who was More Agile? Buddha or Haile Selassie?
|
agentmancuso
|
| Rinty wrote: | | We might as well ask Who was More Agile? Buddha or Haile Selassie? |
Buddha, by a mile. Have you ever tried sitting in that position for days on end?
|
Stevie
|
I suspect it would induce piles.
|
Luke P
|
| Holebender wrote: | Take a look at how some American Christians reacted to the films mentioned, or to John Lennon claiming the Beatles were more popular than Christ. Just because Europe has become more secular, it is no reason for supposing Christianity is any less violent in reacting to perceived threats than Islam is.
The problem is religion, not any particular brand of religion; the more secular the society the less likely religious-based violence is to occur. Allow religion the upper hand and we're back to burning heretics and witches, not to mention Sharia Law. |
Religion gets a bad rep on the issue of violence. It is estimated that religion can be implicated as a cause in only 7% of the world's wars. I wonder if we shouldn't be looking more closely at the causes of the 93%... political ambition, greed, authoritarianism, colonialism, separatism, ethnic hatred etc. etc.
The fact is that Christianity does not advocate violence - far from it. Its central theme is 'love thy neighbour'. I have not read the Quran but I imagine it is not too disimilar on this issue. Whether one particular group of extremists decides to over react to something does not change this.
|
Luke P
|
| linoleum wrote: | 1 mans delusion is a delusion.
10 mens delusions is a religion.
no time for god, mohammed or who ever. religion is for the weak of mind and who wish to be controlled.
mind you a lot of muslims seem to go on murderous jihads in the name of mohammed.not so with the god variety.
mohammed must have been the angier of the 2. |
The deluded never know they are deluded. How do you know you aren't deluded?
|
Shagpile
|
| Luke P wrote: | | linoleum wrote: | 1 mans delusion is a delusion.
10 mens delusions is a religion.
no time for god, mohammed or who ever. religion is for the weak of mind and who wish to be controlled.
mind you a lot of muslims seem to go on murderous jihads in the name of mohammed.not so with the god variety.
mohammed must have been the angier of the 2. |
The deluded never know they are deluded. How do you know you aren't deluded? |
Well that post makes up for your last; to a fellow unionist too, still, perhaps you ought to consider your last bit of advice and apply it to yourself........ "phisician, heal thy self"?
|
Luke P
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Luke P wrote: | | linoleum wrote: | 1 mans delusion is a delusion.
10 mens delusions is a religion.
no time for god, mohammed or who ever. religion is for the weak of mind and who wish to be controlled.
mind you a lot of muslims seem to go on murderous jihads in the name of mohammed.not so with the god variety.
mohammed must have been the angier of the 2. |
The deluded never know they are deluded. How do you know you aren't deluded? |
Well that post makes up for your last; to a fellow unionist too, still, perhaps you ought to consider your last bit of advice and apply it to yourself........ "phisician, heal thy self"? |
It applies to everyone. Youself included.
|
Shagpile
|
| Luke P wrote: | | It applies to everyone. Youself included. |
Guid aine!
|
|
|
