Printable View
Thanks for the clarification Amra.
By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??
The Jewish people did lose a great amount during this time, however, other holocausts should not be belittled because of one event, during 1933 - 1945 Many peoples were persecuted.
And just to clear up one point, though Rwanda only lost C. 800,000 people, that was in the course of little more than a week or two. statistically, hitler could've learned from the rwandans.
Also it was done mostly with machetes, and farming implements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
[QUOTE=subterranean]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Well, it is Pizza the Hutt, from Mel Brooks Spaceballs. :D
AP, I agree with your post that freedom of speech is a good thing. Probably I am at odds with many other christians when I say a blasphemy law would be a bad thing, this is what I believe. Everyone should be free to question and criticise another's religion, although no one should be allowed to persecute anyone for holding to their particular religion. I am not sure where the dividing line should be, maybe you have some ideas?
I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians - those so called heretics burned at the stake, their mission being to have the bible translated into English and made available for everyone to read. The church of the past has a lot to answer for and as you say, those reactions were totally despicable.
It is indeed becoming harder to say what you want about Jesus in this climate of multiculturism. Not very long ago Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' out of consideration for its large Asian poplulation that might have been offended by the mention of Christ in Christmas. Is this contrary to the concept of freedom of speech? I think that it is.
However in this same town last year, the Sikh community forced a theatre to discontinue a show called 'Behzti,' by a demonstration that became a riot. Behzti portrayed rape and violence within a Sikh temple and was generally inflamatory against Sikhism. This is definately contrary to the concept of freedom of speech, but none the less, the sikh's objective was successful. I wonder if Iwilkiku would be so enthusiastic to go and see this play as he would be to see the other one portraying a 'gay' Jesus - and if not, why not?
More recently when the BBC showed 'Jerry Springer:The Opera' and this resulted in one of the BBC directors being harassed out of his home after a Christian website advertised his private address and telephone number. The report that I read at the time..and which I can't find on the internet, said that he had received death threats from militant christians. This too is contrary to the concept of freedom of speech - and I think to the concept of Christianity as taught by Jesus.
What really angers me is that whereas it is usually ok to denigrate Jesus and Christianity, there is an outcry when other religions are given the same treatment and there is no even handedness from the authorities. The Behzti play was unusual in that it was allowed to be performed in the first place and I think that this is probably an exception to the rule. But it was eventually closed down anyway in order to ensure the safety of the audience and staff at the theatre.
'The Opera' also was an exception to the rule because normally Christian demonstrations are passive but in this case degenerated, like the Sihk's protests, into militancy. I think this militancy is contrary to Christianity and to the teachings of Jesus - and that because Christians are normally passive, that they are much more likely to have their religion derided in the arts and media.
It isn't true AP that the burning and torture of 'witches' and heretics was in inspired by the bible's teachings. It was inspired by the usual human traits that dominate mankind - greed for money and power and the need to have subordinates, albeit within the church. No one following Christ would advocate or support inflicting such cruelty on their fellow men and this is the meaning of the word Christian - a follower of Christ. These people even though they may have been called bishops etc, were definately not Christians by the New Testament's definition of the word.
Miranda
Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Agree...Luther's effort is also an example. I don't know, in Indonesia you can't say anything bad about any particular religions..it is against the law and could lead to riots...Which can be politicized (SP) easily. I also think that those witches burning were somewhat happened cause of the role of religious authorities...which shamellesly(sp) thought that they were better than those witches..and twisted the teaching instead..I mean didn't Jesus sit and eat with whores and tax collector?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda
"Thanks for the clarification Amra.
By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??"
I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd. When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition. The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.
Also, one doesn't derive the truth about the Prophet's life and his message by showing images of him, but by many other, steadfast facts we have and believe in. Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.
Sub, Thank you for your post and the reminder of how valuable our freedom of speech is. We have to be careful on this thread because it is against the forum rules to discuss politics and if this discussion goes that way, it will be locked. But freedom of speech in relation to religion I think is allowed. The people branded as witches were often just old women - anyone could be branded as a witch in those days and then burned, all in the name of religion - but only in the name of religion and certainly not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Yes, Jesus did associate with publicans, sinners and prostitutes and the outcasts of society and these accepted him, while the so called spiritual leaders of the time rejected him.
Sorry this is completely off topic Iwilkiku and nothing to do with homosexuality. The discussion seems to have taken off in different directions...
Miranda
Well, the Jesus picture in my house doesn't show a blond man with blue eyes. It shows a man with long brown hair and eyes, like typical adult Jewish man. Also, I once see this poster (in a documentary movie or something like that) in a black man's house, saying "Jesus is a Black Man", with a Jesus figure describe as a black man. To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well...So I don't agree with your opinion of white male dominance. And futher these diversities are merely people expressions from various nations/ethnic groups, and again doesn't mean as a disgrace towards Jesus himself. Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god..Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God.....Quote:
Posted by Amra
I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd.
Well, for Christians, Jesus is God Himself, so in other words, Christians are not creating another image to worship other than God himself..Quote:
When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition.
Personally I think, religious freedom is as important as skin colors. I know that in some established religions, there are authorities who control the "yes" and "no" related to their religions, which in some cases are based on human calculations and thoughts. That's why I'm not really in to religions anymore...Quote:
The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.
Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is...Quote:
Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.
Please excuse me if I have written something inapporipriate or wrong...I'm here to learn...
"To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well..."
Well, that is exactly where my problem with images starts. Who gives human beings the power to limit God to images we can conceive? If it is difficult for us to imagine God, is it justified to show images of Him, just to satisfy our curiousity? As for Jesus being God, that is a totally different issue, and as a muslim, of course, I do not agree with that. It seems rather that people have elevated Jesus to that level, by the same process other religions have elevated the statues that were initially used as manifastations of the Supreme Being, to that being itself. Jesus was a prophet, he passed on God's message, like any other prophet before him, he never told people to worship him, nor did he tell them to show images of him and worship those. That all came afterwards with human curiosity and imagination.
"Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god.."
Worship is not simply a physical performance; it goes far beyond that. If people simply bow in front of someone, that doesn't necessarily mean they are practicing an act of worship. If a Budhist thinks that the statue can do something for him, that it has power, that it can influence his life, and BECAUSE of that, he bows to it, than that is considered worship. Muslims do not bow to anyone but God, because of that belief. By the way, muslims do nt kiss the ground, they put their foreheads on the ground, because it is the ultimate way to show obedience and submission to God. Our greatest asset as human beings is the power to think and to make decisions based on reason, and submitting that reason to God is the ultimate way to worship Him.
"Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God..."
Islam teaches us that human beings are categorized by their obedience to God; meaning that those who are most obedient are the best. That is how I look at it also. I don't know what exactly you do not understand about the ceremonies in Meccah, so I don't know how to answer that question.
"Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is..."
Hadith are sayings, teachings, and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed, that were narrated by his followers and compiled in various books. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that every hadith is a saying of the Prophet himself, but it could be a narration of one of his followers as to what Prophet Mohammed did, or didn't do. So if his wife Aisha r.a. says that Prophet Mohammed prayed in a certain way, that is also considered a hadith, because she is considered a trustworthy person. In regards to the look of Prophet MOhammed a.s. , there are hadith by his followers describing his appearance.
Miss Darcy - "...homosexuality makes me squirm..." - glad your enjoying it.
That piece of writing was beyond satire! I am still not sure if your not a satirical Guerilla. Surely noone can be that clueless?
Oh, reading an old page....hang on, I'll catch up!
People make songs, poetries, plays, sonnets, etc about divine being...still potraying god's image, even in a very beautiful way, is considered as blasphemy????Quote:
Well, that is exactly where my problem with images starts. Who gives human beings the power to limit God to images we can conceive? If it is difficult for us to imagine God, is it justified to show images of Him, just to satisfy our curiousity? As for Jesus being God, that is a totally different issue, and as a muslim, of course, I do not agree with that. It seems rather that people have elevated Jesus to that level, by the same process other religions have elevated the statues that were initially used as manifastations of the Supreme Being, to that being itself. Jesus was a prophet, he passed on God's message, like any other prophet before him, he never told people to worship him, nor did he tell them to show images of him and worship those. That all came afterwards with human curiosity and imagination.
And for the rest of your post, I'm not going to give another comments. We see it in diferent point of views. I don't say yours are wrong, since this sory of things are subjectives...but if you want to say that my opinions are wrong, well I don't care really..
In reply to Miranda's post #85:
<AP, I agree with your post that freedom of speech is a good thing. Probably I am at odds with many other christians when I say a blasphemy law would be a bad thing, this is what I believe. Everyone should be free to question and criticise another's religion, although no one should be allowed to persecute anyone for holding to their particular religion. I am not sure where the dividing line should be, maybe you have some ideas?>
Religion is so wrapped up with persecution, that it seems to come naturally to religious institutions like the church to respond to any threat upon its belief with persecution. I don't think the world will ever be able to eradicate persecution from religion, just as the world will never become totally secular. Persecution is a difficult term. When does constant criticism of belief become persecution? I don't see many philosophers complaining of persecution from their colleagues who hold opposing views, and yet philosophy is filled with debate and criticism. Even a philosopher who is constantly harangued by religious believers, like Peter Singer, would not see well-argued, but intense criticism as persecution.
<I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians>
It's very easy to call them christians now - do you think they would have been seen by the majority of the church as christians in their day? In fact, I'm not even sure that the term christian is that meaningful anymore. mormons, jehovah's witnesses, Shakers, Anabaptists, Catholics, Cathars, Ranters, Methodists, Mennonites, etc are all christian aren't they? And yet they all seem to be greatly different to each other.
<It is indeed becoming harder to say what you want about Jesus in this climate of multiculturism. Not very long ago Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' out of consideration for its large Asian poplulation that might have been offended by the mention of Christ in Christmas. Is this contrary to the concept of freedom of speech? I think that it is.>
How do you feel about racists speaking freely about their views to the general public? Should they be allowed to voice their opinions and try to convert others to their beliefs?
<What really angers me is that whereas it is usually ok to denigrate Jesus and Christianity, there is an outcry when other religions are given the same treatment and there is no even handedness from the authorities.>
What would you call even-handedness? There are far more people who claim to be christian in this country than any other religion. Would you rather have all those christians given the freedom to denigrate their competitor religions? Or should we not ever criticise religion? Its a bit rich for a person professing to be christian to condemn the criticism of religion, seeing as christianity itself was built upon criticism of religion. How do you think christianity won over pagan Europe? By calling a peace gathering maybe and explaining the 'truth's' of the gospel to them?
<It isn't true AP that the burning and torture of 'witches' and heretics was in inspired by the bible's teachings>
I don't suppose Exodus 22:18 (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live) had anything to do with it then. And I suppose that the recent disgraceful conduct of christian religious believers in the UK, where a child was persecuted for being possessed, had anything to do with Mark 9:29, or Mark 5:2-15, or Mark 16:17, or Matthew 12:43-45. Mark 9:38-40 says this:
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us"
The idea of spirit possession is a superstitious nonsense, promoted by the bible.