I've read the Quarn and don't recall anything about that either.. on the other hand the bible states not to draw anything... at least that's my take on it. "Thou shall not make graven images of anything on earth or in heaven" or something like that. Some even use this argument to get drivers licenses without their picture on it. I think it's already been said a few times in this thread but my opinion is also that religion is mainly used to control the masses and keep people in check.
I said clear instructions, didn't say they were in the Quran. Religions use auxiliary text sources besides the main book, eg the Apostles in Christian religion.
Thanks for that bit of info, I hadn't researched their religion any further than reading the one book... it was long enough and to me personally didn't seem inspired one bit. :shrug: To take advantage of these docile people? And for those of us in the US to liberate us of our gold and replace it with worthless paper. :crying:
So I've to take as sacred the word of some second-rate asshole on a powertrip who couldn't draw and therefore decided no else could? As any dogma, religions dont educate people for shit, is just a series of dumb rules used to establish a totalitarian rule with an unmovable status quo. Those rules tend to contradict themselves all the time, like christianity saying the poor shall inherit the earth, or islam preaching about love and peace. Go ask the gold-plated vatican or the millions of angry suicidal bombers about any of that...
Exactly what is this "the Apostles" that Christians follow along side The Bible? Shadowlayer, I've been with you on basically the whole of your arguments, but I don't understand how "the meek shall inherit the earth" is at all contradictory of the totality of the bible. If you could explain what you mean by that I would appreciate it. As thelastuser pointed out. There is an instruction in the bible not to have any graven images for use in religious ceremony. Yet you do not see all of Christendom rallying about threatening to murder and maim. IN fact you do not see all of Christendom even remotely pissed off about this.. In fact you tend to see even many who seem to disregard this point altogether and use images of Jesus in their places of worship.
Servicegames, the Bible has been interpreted differently over the years and splinter factions have formed due to this - hence Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodoxy etc. Use of images was utlised (introduced? Can't remember) in Orthodoxy to convert Slavic peoples to God as they traditionally worship icons for example. Shadowlayer, I wouldn't say religions don't educate - perhaps now there isn't any need for it to educate since Reductionist science has been accepted by the masses (even if they are ignorant to it), but in the past it certainly helped Muslims, Catholics, despite barring it to commoners, peasants etc (though its doubtful that years ago they would seek to be literate anyway). It is funny that the reasons you criticise it now (totalitarian control etc) are the reasons why literacy and science came about in many places, because the day to day chores of life were lifted for priests and so on, so they had time to devote to intellectual matters. The first signs of culture like wall paintings are for worship, or at least reverence. Don't get me wrong, on balance though I agree that it has done a lot of harm since 0 AD, especially Catholicism. As ever power corrupts at the end of the day.
You joking me right? what those bastards were doing was keeping knowledge AWAY from the rest of the world. They worked to ensure people would only listen to them and no-one else, and because they had all the information and were the sole source at the same time the public's perception of reality was shaped to what the church wanted them to believe.
Not really, the sentence above that which you quoted says what you just did, and goes someway to explaining why. I think your judgment is clouded somewhat; you presume everyone wants to be literate and to learn, Many do, obviously, but not everyone. Despite keeping it away from 'common' people priests etc still developed it and more importantly made sure the next generation inherited it. It is also a bit rich that you assume that all of 'those bastards' kept knowledge to themselves - this is prevalent in Catholicism yes, but not in many other religions, where it is in fact encouraged (and these were generally the more technologically advanced societies). In short, you can't tar everyone with the same brush. Think about the macro, rather than the actions of a (relative, and recent) few. That is what I'm arguing for. Going back to another point in my previous point, IMO religion/worship is inextricably linked with the progress of human knowledge - it may simply be a placeholder for knowledge that isn't based on observable fact, but it stimulated abstract thought by giving a (temporary) explanation in the initial,overwhelming, question - what is consciousness. A question that has still not really been answered fully. That said, it did lead humans down the wrong path for many years. I'm not disagreeing with you, rather I'm saying you can't assess where the world would be without it
Thanks Barcode, but the Apostles are part of the New Testament. Which is in itself a part of the bible. So it's not so much an additional text as it is a part of the whole.
well considering the bible contains judaic texts I m not sure what you're implying here. The Quran also contains parts of the Bible and Torat..so? a text source is a text source, the Muslims use them to explain their main book as much as any other religion.
I'm not trying to imply anything. I'm just saying that the above statement does not make sense. Yes the bible contains many books, but they are all bound into one and called the bible. This is far different to referencing self contained auxiliary works. Sure plenty of religions use more than one book as a reference, but Christianity is not one of them.
hmmm while we are at it, then the oldest Koran is actually in three languages, and not just the Arabic language we know. A German man who has helped research it, is now living under police protection. Because it is not okay for an infidel to read or say anything from the Koran, so how cool is that ? Not cool !
The quran is actually based on both the torah and the bible, 'cept for the little part when their forgot to put that those religions (and many more) existed before islam, and not the other way around. On the "love&peace" section of the quran says that the "people of the book" (jews 'n christians) can't be harmed and should be treated as equals!:lol: Better get that notarized next time! BTW, for all the buddhists, hindus and members of other religions: according to the quran you're all to be killed, since you're pagans and/or dont hold the same core beliefs, so try to imagine what will happen to you considering what going on right now with the "equal" jews and christians living in islamic countries. Like their admission standards are so high...
Angry? Yes. Maybe angry enough to do some counter-protests like that anti-draw mohammed day group on youtube/facebook did. But angry enough to threaten someone with death? No. Just because "somebody" else might, does that mean I should self censor? I don't think so. I commend the anti-protesters, because that's exactly how one should act in these situations, that is using their own freedom of speech to express their own opinions. But then you get the Government of Pakistan blocking Facebook for a week because of this shit... what a joke.... I think these kinds of culture wars are actually pretty healthy for responsible societies to undergo. Maybe if each time some lunatic makes a death threat we counter with another Draw Mohommed Day, then they might get the message and stop doing that shit. I'm gonna self censor my artwork because of what some dipshit in Pakistan thinks? Hell no. Because seriously, fuck them. There seems to be a lot of things Christians believe that don't have much scriptural basis (such as the mythology around Satan, which seems to come less from the bible and more from Paradise lost) yet other things they don't believe that do - slavery or polygamy for example. Another example is belief in the Trinity, which is a dogma created to assign divinity to Christ by the early church fathers. There are also alternative gospels out there, Gnostic gospels which were banned by the church, lost books of the old testament (such as the Book of Giants, the Wars of the Lord, and others,) etc. Just as today there are sects which allow women priests, others which allow Gay priests, some that have really unorthodox theology (like Mormons, Jehova's Witnessess,) while others have extreme interpretations of scripture that lead to wholly different life styles (like Quakers.) Christianity is obviously an evolving religion So to say that Christian belief is uniform, or that the Christians of today believe the same things as those from 2000 years ago is really not accurate.
well its not like you're gonna lose out on great jokes if you don't draw Mohamed. Anyone who does obviously does it to piss someone off, ie Muslims, in which case the principal is flawed. using freedom of expression to draw Swastikas in schools is not expressing an idea. Same with drawing Mohamed. There's no idea expressed that's worth defending, and the court would agree. Freedom of expression is reserved for grander and more complex stuff, not stupid reactionism. That's the right to be an asshole.
And this is the problem. True Christianity has not evolved at all, but is as it always has been and always will be. Man seems to have a desire to take what has been given him and bastardize it until it is generally unrecognizable. Man can change their own churches and beliefs to suit the whims of current trends, but this does not make them Christians no matter how much they fight to use the title.
