Statesboro, GA, USA
So if Christ said something about Mohammed and Mohammed came many years before Christ, wouldn't you believe what Christ said too?
If he said something patently false about Mohammed, I would have to conclude he probably wasn't the Christ. But that's the kind of problem you run into with conjectural history.
In actual history, the 7th-century Koran makes patently false statements about a 1st-century Christ, in contradiction with 1st century writers. I know that his sources were people he met on the Caravan routes, practicers of eclectic religions blending a little history, a little Roman Catholicism, a little gnosticism, and a lot of fiction. So it may have not been an intentional distortion, but nevertheless it is lacking in historical soundness.
BTW, Don't think I am unware that the best of histories are piecemeal and have thier share of fuzziness. That doesn't mean that we don't have some very real, sharply focused pictures, true to form.
If you were born in Islam would you still believe there is very little reason to believe what Mohammed said?
Are you asking if deception is possible? Of course it is. I can only hope, that by the Grace of God, and with the right information, I might search out the claims of Islam. I don't deny that cultural upbringing is a major influence on an individual. But that doesn't negate the fact that claims may be either true or false.
Regardless of these kinds of questions you are asking, particular evidences must be discussed at some point. Even coming into religion with no pre-commitments, I was sure that all the contradictory claims could not be right. That's what you are missing. It's not that there isn't a measure of truth and beauty in all these systems, but that their fundamental historical and philosophical claims are at odds.
As Ravi Zacharias said, "it makes more sense to say that all religions are false, than to say that they are all true."
It seems easy to trivialize something that is not in your own religion.
Bringing up specific problems is not necessarily trivializing. Might you not be trivializing ALL religions by not taking their fundamental claims seriously? Aren't you just patronizing by praising their "virtues" and not caring for their claims, even enough to diagree? With my view, I can't help but to offend the Muslim. With your view you offend both Christian and Muslim, by dismantling their distinctness.
Again, in analyzing religious claims, we must examine specifics, not make platitudinous claims of intrinsic equality. I'm sounding like a broken record I know. But we're still stuck!
But for those that believe in it and have it in thier religion, they take it just as seriously as you take something Christ said.
I already knew that. Therefore let's examine what was said, specifically. The "taking seriously" is part and parcel with all religious followers. The question of "why" is not as common among the "faithful".
Try being born in Islam and see if you still believe the same.
You know Ess, I tried a full 5 minutes to no avail. I couldn't travel back in time, nor could I convince my Mom to move to Iran. I think I already addressed the question of culture above, and how it is important, but not wholly determinate of truth.
You have converts from one religious culture to another too. How do we differentiate what is true then? I think that here we must discuss claims, rather than restate obvious things like influence of culture and universal devotion.
I don't agree. Just because they don't focus on the same things as Christianity does doesn't mean they aren't "historical" They have their own focus, traditions, teachings, literatures, evolved thro history and based especially on history they experienced, just as Christianity.
I never said that they didn't have a cultural "history". What I meant was that they are not historically centered religions. Christianity preaches events that happened in Space-Time (the incarnation, the crucifixion of Christ, the resurrection). And without these events, there would be no Christianity. History validates that these things happened. And philosophically-based religions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism) do not view history as all that important. When you believe that there is no universal truth, and that human life is something to be escaped from, this is not surprising. But with Christianity, we have events that are shocking, and that speak in stark contrast to that view. Life is good, and despite the grievous fall we're in, there is hope for restoration, not dissolution.
So I'm right in saying that Hindu-Buddhist-style religions minimalize history. I believe even they would say so, in light of their philosophies.
You just need to say "Religions" to me Stephanos. "Historical" is a given to me.
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the nature of each religion and how "history" is viewed within it. Even the "Heaven's Gate" Cult had a "history". But that doesn't mean history has much meaning within their escapist framework. Nor does it mean that their beliefs sprung from any objective historical events beyond ideas and deceptions in the form of conspiratorial paranoia.
Beliefs to me are beliefs and in truths, not lies. Lies to me are lies, not beliefs.
You've never offered any compelling reason to think that lies can't be believed, just as truths are. I heard a story the other day that a Charge-nurse at a hospital allowed some "maintenance men" in to do some work. Turns out they were theives who stole several purses from the break-room, and not workers at all. That Charge nurse believed a lie.
(shaking head) Feel free to disregard that last part Essorant. I don't really want to do this again.
I haven't explained why you should read it because to explain why would spoil why you should read it.
I already know the story line, as well as some of the contemporary interpretations. How could you spoil it, by simply saying what's on your mind?
That is how who sparks interest?
My mistake. So you're saying that showing relevance and sparking interest doesn't apply to you? Seriously though, I'm aware that controversy sometimes inadvertently creates interest. True to form.
No, I haven't. Is it something I should read?
Most definitely. It's a long one though. No quick hills or bumps, catered to deep philosophical thought and long views, like the Russian landscape itself. Each character, like Smerdyakov for example, is a type of different kinds of people. The Pious, Rationalist, embittered, or impassioned ... each fate is traced out with existential precision that made me shudder. Though it's a slow breath, it really is a breathtaking read.