Slashdot Mirror
Vatican/HP To Put Library Online
darkuncle writes "I first read it in the LA Times print edition this morning, but the story is also available on several websites via news.google.com. Apparently the Vatican has enlisted Hewlett-Packard in an effort to put the contents of the Vatican Library online, including many rare Bible texts and previously unavailable manuscripts, including handwritten notes by the likes of Martin Luther and Michelangelo."
We can finally see if Samuel Jackson was actually quoting the bible in Pulp Fiction, or if he was just making shit up...
...to Slashdot the Vatican? I guess we just might find out!
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Just give it a week and Carly Fiorina(HP CEO) will have a plan to merge the catican library with the library of congress. Of course they'll have to lay 15,000 of the cardinals and it will cost 20 times as much...
Step One: Merger Libraries
Step Two: ???
Step Three: PROFIT!!!!
I wonder if they'll let HP put everything they find there...
Business Associate? Why not internally.
Will it include all the rare texts? Including the prediction of the fall of the cathlic empire? Or will it jsut put texts to show the struggle of the cahtholic religon to make it look more appealign to the general public?
BTW I am a cathlic, and I am not bashing, just curious.
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Hey, maybe I'm just a religion n00b, but I was under the impression that all the text of the Bible was, uh, in the Bible.
Are they talking about original scans or something?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It will be interesting to see if this stuff is public domain (you would think), or does the Vatican claim copyright ownership, in the manner of Scientology?
Thou Shalt NOT Crack the Vatican's Servers!
Punishment will be 1000 years in the data entry portion of Purgatory.
Amen.
Unfortunately the DMCA forbids them from putting any of Leonardo's work on the Web, since he used a simple encryptation system and didn't write them an access license.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Will it contain any readings on peeing with Forrest Newman!
Be Be Boop Boop Be Be Be Boop Boop
I mean there are documents going back to the Roman Empire. Could you imagine if it all was available online? And searchable? The man-hours to do it would be incredible.
I mean, there are rumors of intelligence reports from Pontius Pilate being archived there. Watch all the Bible geeks have a field day.
Plus I imagine, a copy of every forbidden book written since then. Kept around, just as evidence.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is there any specific reason that the Vatican would pick HP over other candidates? I'm sure that they have a good web team, but that isn't their primary occupation... Why not pick a company that has done this kind of thing before? (Or, alternatively, has HP done this before?) Just curious...
I know HP makes some nice scanning equipment, and I can just picture an engineer trying to figure out how to sheet-feed a 14th century handwritten Bible. Shall we propose this as the biggest OCR task this side of scanning the Rosetta Stone?
You never know with religion, maybe there's something to it, maybe there isn't. Maybe life imitates art, art imitates life.
In the case of Raiders of the lost Arc the movie was done so well that one could almost "imagine" it to be real. Does the vatican hold onto ancient relics with seemingly supernatural powers? Could some of these be alien technology recovered years ago by clerics?
What of other things such as Exorcisms, demonic possesions, spirit speak and the like, will the cases surrounding these events be made public.
I was baptized catholic, but thats about it. I'm really curious to see if any of the cool stuff that went on in hollywood catholisism goes on in real life.
It's about time. The Vatican has, arguably, the worlds most diverse collection not just of religious writings, but also of scientific, historical, mathematic, political and cultural documents known to man.
Looking forward to seeing whats online.
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
Found in the margin of one old copy of the bible "I have proved the existance of god which this margin is too small to contain -- Peter"
But this project was to allow access to specified scholars. It's nice to see expanded access.
This happened when the Dead Sea Scrolls were fist reseased to a set of specific people. A data set was made available to the general public of word occurrences and relationships. A group of people used this data to compile the original texts, and released them to everyone. It pissed a lot of ivory tower types off, IIRC.
I wonder if it includes the Vatican's extra specail collections.
ok, moderate me -1 and be done with it. Some sentiments are too disgusting, even for trolls.
There's a "Holy See Plus Plus" joke here somewhere.
I object to that article, and to the next reply.
I'm sure they'll filter a lot. "Rare texts" are rare, because it's easy to use them agains Catholic Church. I think they'll stay "rare".
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
I wonder if there will be info about the buddy Jesus? Seriously though....this could be really neat, especially if they post everything(hehe...right).
I think IBM Global Services was doing some work in this area. I guess the estimate was too much, even for the Vatican.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Oh no! The millions and millions that have held the Bible and the teachings of Jesus so dear have been explosed as frauds by someone on Slashdot with the alias SexyKellyOsbourne!
I hope they don't try to control the content like they with everything else. That way some of the other scholars and oridinary folks alike can study/understand the real text in the bible and not let it be interpreted by others who might leave out a thing or change the meaning to what they feel is right. Don't get me wrong. Not everyone intreprets it incorrectly, but just that all of think differently and you might have published your view of what is in the bible. Now I get to read and figure out the view in the printed version is correct
It's C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
I heard the Vatican had a huge archive of erotic art & such. If it's true I wonder if any of it is going online.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Nail decree on church door
2. ???
3. Prophet!!!
For more information about becoming part of this project, point your web browser to http://www.vatican.va/switch/
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
I would imagine most Slashdotters are aware that the Vatican is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Another factoid, but possibly not so obvious, is that the Bible as we know it today -- most people are familiar with the King James Version -- is a collection of works whose inclusion (or exclusion if you want to think of it that way) is more or less arbitrary. For example, "Esther" is omitted (yes, I'm serious).
So what I'm getting at is whether the Vatican plans on opening up all works for perusal or do they plan on omitting certain works based, possibly, on how well the information fits in with the desired line of thinking.
What if there are works that don't dovetail with the accepted works? What if some writings in their collection outright contradict other writings? Is the Vatican ready to drop the line that theology is too important to leave to the commoners, really?
My
Limekiller
And the cathedrals! Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit. It existed for how many centuries before the people even understood a single word of mass? The cathedrals are castles that were funded by the faithful who really had no clue what their faith was. The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge.
I'll most likely be modded as flame bait, but that would really only prove my point. There has never been any type of openness or disclosure about what the Catholic church is up to, and for a very good reason. It siphons money from believers in order to fortify its position and find a reason to exist. So they'll publish their library, so what? This certainly won't be the dawning of a new age of responsibility, accountability, righteous ethics, or social service in the Church.
So, anyhow, the moderators can prove me right by marking this as flamebait. If I were wrong, there would be more than enough people to explain why I'm mistaken and stupid, but barring that unlikely scenario, mod me to -1 so nobody gets the sniffles or sheds a tear.
For instance, only one page from the rare "B" version of the "Codex Vaticanus" Bible is available online.
Coming soon: The Holy Bible - Special Edition
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Thanks. Very mature of you. More /. posters should be as considerate.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
To start: here are the images and descriptions of the Vatican City euro coins ;-)
Jan
Seriously, how can the parent post be modded Insightful?
Will this effort include the Index, and material on it?
And by the way, I'm not atheist and not a follower of some trendy-flavor-of-the-week-fringe religion. I am religious, I do believe in the God of Abraham, but am certainly not a fan of Catholicism.
The news.google.com results:
... 4567222). I thought for a fleeting moment that The Vatican had acquired ...
...blargle...
Vatican/HP To Put Library Online
Slashdot - 4 minutes ago
HP. I would've liked to have seen the org chart for that one...
[snip]
My other sig is also a
...they will put the Necronomicon online?
Or only boring catholic texts are going to be in that library?
I would like to see it's private collection of non-catholic texts, they must be interesting
Will the site offer translation services? Babelfish doesn't do Latin.
All people need to do is READ the Bible to discredit Modern Christianity and the Catholic Church.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
Christianity is of course an amalgmam of pre-existing religous/ cultural beliefs and a new tradition. The point is, it had one pretty good leader and he had a bunch of followers who weren't to shabby either. Discredit?, far from it. Exhibit failings? absolutely. That's a huge difference. It still will be those who choose to believe, will believe. Those who refuse to believe, won't.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
How would you being moded as flamebait in any way shape or form prove you right? Couldn't it simply be that what you have written merely incites anti-Catholic prejudice rather than adding anything useful to the conversation? Or is anyone that disagrees with you just 'damn Catholic opressors?' Way to go thinking that you're somehow in on the 'Catholic conspiracy' and the /. community is in on it.
.. also be using this technology to publish the massive death rates in Africa and elsewhere in the world that have been caused by the Church's Stone-Age opposition to birth control and family planning?
Just curious.
If the Vatican puts the contents of the Vatican library I guarantee they will censor the living hell out of what goes online. They wouldn't dare put the old Pre-Nicean Counsel (sp) texts up on the library. I am certain all the old Gnostic works will still be locked up in a vault. The pre-latin translation, arimeic, (sp) texts and countless other "forbidden" texts won't make it in. This is a joke right? It's hard enough when I was studying theology to get Pre-Vatican II texts from them. The bulk of what is in the library I doubt will ever see the light of day. I wonder if they still have the notes and comments from the Nicean Councel on what was removed and what was kept and what was changed. (Case in point the whole Virgin thing is in question as prior to most Latin text Mary wasn't mentioned as being a Virgin. So maybe his brother really was a half brother) I will be interested in seeing the results of this no doubt but I have a feeling we'll only get the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. Yes I know I butchered this but I have no spell checker at the moment.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
How can the Vatican Library exert copyright over a document written by, of all people, Martin Luther. I suppose he was a Monk at the time he wrote it....
Are they simply exerting copyright over the photograph of the document, and not on the contents of the document itself? Is that okay, even?
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Pr0n, pr0n and more pr0n.
The Vatican supposedly has the largest collection of erotica in the world.
Cecil Adams disagrees, though, so I suppose it must not be true.
--
E_NOSIG
"We're the only ones good enough for the Vatican."
If this doesn't inflate your ego, what will?
If they put all of it up on the internet, it would discredit Christianity and the Catholic Church so much that it would be the final nail in the coffin.
Bullshit.
The documents in the Vatican Library are there for a reason. When St. Augstine ordered the selection of books which would make up the Bible circa 300 AD, a shitload of books were NOT included. They still kept them as supporting evidence of the existance of Jesus, even though their accounts were way off (some had dragons, virgin sacrifices etc). And that's just Jesus - there are texts supporting the evidence of a global flood, texts supporting the 10 plagues, texts to back up the entire Bible.
Which can only give it more credit.
Some of the unmentioned scandals remain unmentioned for the protection of innocent victims. Same reason some court cases involving mi nors remain closed.
Most of the priests I know have given their lives to the service of others and have a sincere desire to be eternal united with God in Heaven. The difficult lives of service and poverty. Only their faith makes it worth while... not the "self preservation and profit" motive you've mentioned.
When you're ready, the Catholic Church will welcome you.
God Bless
Considering all the brainpower that seems to be concentrated(?) at the /.-ers PCs when it comes to more or less mindless trivia like asteroids threatening Earth, new ways to make ultra-thin condoms or whatever, it's rather scary to see all the glibness and plain ignorance at a moment like this.
The fact that a tremendous lot of historical data will be acessible is, in it self, fantastic news.
Of course, it will be selected and skewed, and no, the p)0(rn will not be there, but that's not the point. It will be THERE, to help all those interested to learn more. Like any great museum, if you will.
I'm not a Catholic, I'm not a bit religious, but I think things like this make the Net something great!
"Not to mention, it would bring out a lot of texts that would show just how modern Christianity and Catholicism was practically invented by Roman Councils picking, choosing, and editing text as they pleased, and how all the text of the Bible either came from oral history or history written 70 years after Jesus' death, of which none of the original texts still exist."
Yeah, whatever. You obviously know absolutely nothing about Historical Criticism. Your bias against Christianity has scewed your view of New Testament development so severely that you lack any objectivity. Though, IMHO, traditional authorship (as claimed by Christians) of NT texts has a tendency to be incorrect, save for Paul's writings (and even some of those are up for contention), it's a stetch to say "modern Christianity and Catholicism was practically invented by Roman Councils picking, choosing, and editing text as they pleased" and "written 70 years after Jesus' death". There are some that argue (including myself) that Mark and "Q" predate the revolt/Temple destruction and 'Luke'/'Mat.' reliance on said texts shows a level of care in constructing their gospels that sceptics don't want to admit.
I'm probabally wasting my time...
Learn some Biblical history and take your anti-Christian bias out of the picture, it makes you look immature, even to non-Christians (like myself).
Burn Hollywood Burn
I think that it's funny, but also unfortunate, that people can aver that texts upon which they've never laid eyes will (not might, but will) serve to discredit the church, et c., et c.
It's also unproductive to rail on a previous lack of transparency to argue against (or so the writer's intention would seem) the current move(s) toward increased transparency.
Silly kids.
That's kind of like saying that because a couple of Muslims got together and killed a few thousand innocent citizens, the entire Islamic religion will be discredited. While witch hunts, pedophilia, and God-knows what other atrocities have been committed in the name Christianity (Crusades...), any rational person would attribute that to the zealots who took a good thing and perverted it.
I have strong doubts that exposing historical atrocities commited in the name of Christianity will be the "nail in the coffin." I didn't even realize there was a coffin for that matter...
Too bad the Catholic church isn't Christianity...
According the the Second Vatican Council, only the Vatican has the right to interpret Catholic laws, and tradition comes before Biblical teaching. That's why Catholics pray to saints, the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible teaches.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
A) When the big hand is on the little hand.
*ducks*
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
They're actually in the Bible, too.
p e=AND&language=english&searchpage=0&search=unicorn &version=KJV
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?SearchTy
Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Actually, If I understand you, Ester (Esther?) is only omitted in the protestant version of the bible, as well as all the books of wisdom.
The protestant and catholic versions of the bible differ in number of books and content in many areas.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
I think this is an excellent move for the Catholic church. I am not catholic nor do I like the practice much, but I see the potential the church has if it ever becomes righteous...
"And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion."
While I agree it's never good to make "wildly opinionated and unsupported comments", I don't think that's the case here. After spending all my years in schooling up 'til college in either Sunday school (first 4 years) or a Catholic school (the rest), I learned a great deal about the Catholic Church and its history. And you know what? (S)He's right. The statements made aren't supported by links etc., but generally speaking, facts stand on their own. If you would like to debate anything that was said, feel free. I'm more than willing to find a plethoria of evidence to support each and every claim made in that post.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I'm not sure what this 'Catholic conspiracy' thing is... Is that like an 'enemies are bad' conspiracy? I never intended to 'let anyone in on it', but to point out that it is hardly going to be a surprise when the Vatican omits large portions of their library from public view. I mean, let's be honest, inciteful or not, the Catholic Church is simply NOT an organization known for being open about themselves. There is a well established history of concealing their documents and actions. Does that incite you? It certainly should not, since it ought to be very common knowledge at this point.
As for things to contribute to the conversation, I've already shared my expectations with regards to the publication of materials critical of or harmful to the Church. It won't happen. That's a type of transparency and accountability which goes against hundreds of years of Vatican policy. That much is fact. If that is inciteful, the fault is not with me. If I'm modded down for pointing out these facts, it only serves to justify my criticisms, specifically that the Catholic Church has no excuse for itself and must therefore silence criticism rather than address it.
Thanks for the response.
Doesn't the Vatican have the largest collection of porn in the world? Well, that's one way to build bigger churches! :-)
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
Yes.
It is OK to laugh at an adult who believes in Santa Clause, and with the right judge, you can probably get said adult committed and their next-of-kin awarded power of attorney.
But do not ever question religious beliefs, or express unflattering opinions thereof, and for god's sake don't ever imply that religious beliefs might be on the same order of silliness as a belief in Santa Clause!
Conviniently, we have decided pointing out the foolishness of adults who believe in modern day myth to be rude, while of course their expounding on the eternal torture of those who do not believe in precisely those same myths, or do believe in those same myths, but with slightly differing interpretations thereof, and proseletyzing such beliefs to others, whether or not the victim of such proseletyzing wants to hear it, is merely an "expression" of their "faith."
So have some tolerance, and for crying out loud stop calling a jack-of-diamonds a jack-of-diamonds.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Those are far from the only reasons... Read this:
English - Are Roman Catholics Christians? ©1985 by Jack T. Chick LLC
The work that IBM did was over 10 years ago... and they were working on the library management system and creating a local system to view digital versions of documents that shouldn't be handled frequently. However none of that work translated to the web very well...
The1Genius - Littera Scripta Manet
Okay, I'll take the challenge.
Myth #1: Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Fact: Catholicism is niether a corporation nor for profit. It is a widely held misconception that the Catholic church is obscenely rich, when in fact it has relatively limited liquid resources (everything is in priceless sacred art, buildings, etc). And the vast majority of what money that comes into Rome goes into making the Church the world's #1 providor of care of AIDS, and countless other charitable activities.
Myth #2: It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
Fact: Buying indulgences was never a licit practice in the Church and has been soundly rejected over and over again.
Myth #3: The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge
Fact: Many historians would disagree (Hillare Belloc for example). In fact, the Crusades were incredibly costly, rather than profitable. And a question: While you're bashing, why not claim they just wanted to masacre Jews and Muslims? That's another common one you seemed to have missed. Most anti-Catholic historians seem to take that position.
I could go on, but frankly, there's no point. You haven't provided any support for your points, so there's really nothing to argue against rather than your opinions.
Once again the Slashdot lemming mentality strikes.
Had anyone but a few people bothered to read the article, or even the headline of it at the LA Times link, they'd see that only documents from 1922-1939 would be opened. They seem to be doing this to reduce criticism of the papacy's role in pre-WWII events. (With all the bad press they've been getting lately, who can blame them?)
So no really important mystery-solving and faith-smashing texts will be released. Boo hoo.
Anyway, I can understand why people didn't go look. I mean, you had to click on the link in the post, and then click on the "The World" link, and then scroll down half a page, and maybe even click again. That's a lot of effort to not sound like an ignorant jackass. Hell, I did it, and I probably still do.
Esther is in my Bible, as well as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. There are some books the Roman Catholic Church considers to be Scripture such as Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Maccabees books, III and IV Esdras (I think?), etc., that most Protestants do not.
Not sure where the poster above got the idea that Esther was omitted in Catholic or Protestant Bibles...
I figure I'm capable of examining each book myself on its merits and deciding if it is Scripture or not myself. People were doing so long before any councils decided what was canon and what was not.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
what Martin Luter could have written to Vatican.
Certainly you could find many sources. And I could find many counter-sources as well. No doubt you would refer to something like 'Hitler's Pope' while I would counter by pointing to all the Jewish historians and leaders who have shown their support for Pius IX. It would go on and on. But above all what the poster and most others fail to do is to distinguish between what Catholics do and what the Church teaches. No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction.
"Rare texts" are rare, because it's easy to use them agains (sic)Catholic Church. I think they'll stay "rare".
No, rare texts are rare because few copies exist. Why not? For one thing, many of the books and manuscripts that we're talking about predate the printing press. No need to come up with conspiracy theories to explain it.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Reverend Chick cited non-ironically?!?! The sky is falling!
Actually the King James Bible probably isn't the one most people are familiar with. It's one of the great works of English literature, but for day-to-day use most people use modern versions such as the New International Version.
So will they use the dated Theological Markup Language (ThML)? Or do they go with Cocoon/TomCat to mark-up this data the same way the CCEL does?
--- have you healed your church website?
Some chapters (not all) of Esther are omitted from Protestant Bibles.
Not only is the Catholic church solidly rooted in Sacred Scripture, but it also has the traditions given by Jesus and the apostles.
Try http://www.catholic.com Some of the answers are a little deep, so you may need to ask for help.
God Bless
Isn't the Web "the largest collection of erotica in the world"?
see also "P0rn again Christians"
Whatever anyone says about the content of these documents is irrelevant. The fact is, most people in the world wouldn't have access to these documents unless they got on a plane to Rome and had lots of time to peruse church archives.
This move is going to make theological research easier for those of us who:
1. don't have a doctorate in it
2. don't have hundreds of dollars for plane tickets
3. don't know the Pope personally
Have you tried to sit down and actually READ that thing lately? It's really not interesting. Most Bibles I've seen are written in wording that makes Yoda seem like a Rhodes scholar. Is there any wonder there is such disinterest in something that is based around a bunch of made up stories that supposedly happened thousands of years ago? I'd be more than happy to faithfully follow Jesus's teachings if he'd take a moment to come back and perform some more miracles for us modern people. He did it for them two thousand years ago, why are we supposed to be so naive that we believe a bunch of folk stories? If I was god I wouldn't want my followers blindly following a bunch of half truths based on some notion of blind faith. Perform the miracles, show the awesome power of Jesus and God and make believers out of BILLIONS of people. What would it hurt? A few lousy miracles is all it would take. Bring someone back from the dead. Turn water into wine. Whatever... give us something to believe in again and we will follow you without question. All I get are riddles and rhymes from the clergy about how I have to have faith and god works in mysterious ways and other such bullshit. If god actually cared what the fuck was going on on this planet or whether we worshipped him or not he'd take a little more active role in trying to win over followers. The people running for public office have more dedicated constituents than the average religious follower! It's no wonder though, if they get elected at least you're pretty much guarenteed a handout. With God it's "well, maybe when you die you'll go to heaven and live in eternal happiness." Riiiiggghhht. Can I have that in writing? Oh yea, I forgot, it's probably a sin to dare question the word of god. Blah. OK, I guess I'm going to hell. Who's coming with me? :-)
Damn! Google is fast. I clicked the link in the Slashdot story, then without looking, clicked the top link on the news.google.com site -- which was back to the Slashdot story!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
That said, I'm not searching for anything spiritual and it is truly inconceivable that Catholicism is The Answer for me (or anyone, but that's just my opinion ;) I won't be surprised when the online Vatican library is not comprehensive and suppose I was a bit too opinionated in saying so.
It's a neat story though.
;)
I'd imagine a lot of the art they contain might depict the naked human body, but I hear there really isn't much in the way of 'hubba hubba'
Kevin
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"?
That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates.
jdavidb writes:
"Not sure where the poster above got the idea that Esther was omitted in Catholic or Protestant Bibles..."
It's called "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." =)
My main idea is still there (will the church allow possibly conflicting books' "source code" to be released?), but I was a bit hasty in including Esther. I read that it was omitted in some works and made a leap of logic that apparently was wrong.
My
Limekiller
The sacking of Constantinople was an action condemed by the Pope during a Crusade that was condemed by the Pope before it was even started. I hardly think that could be considered evidence against the Vatican, only that Catholic people have done horrible things, just like any other group of people.
There is a well established history of concealing their documents and actions.
Every institution does this, not just the Catholic Church. It just happens to be that you assume they are up to something sinister because of it. It's anti-Catholic bias. It doesn't incite me that you mention this fact, only that you assume evil intentions when you have no idea one way or another.
And I will repeat, if you get modded down it's not because you're 'pointing out these facts' (as if you're the only one ever to make these claims). Don't be so paranoid and be assured that everyone here is just as committed to free discussion as you are. The Pope isn't lurking
However, I believe that when the grandparent poster said "wildly opinionate and unsupported comments," he was referring to the claim that the Vatican would hide the records of such past sins. That claim was provided entirely without evidence, unless we're to believe that "that's just the sort of thing that those Catholics would do." To the extent that the original poster was implying that, I am rightly offended.
MSK
What if some writings in their collection outright contradict other writings
This would probably have no additional effects, as there are already self-contradictions within the bible.
Some Christians would still not admit that such contradictions disprove a fundamentalist interpretation (which they do)
And some Atheist would keep telling us that such contradictions disprove Christianity in general (which they don't)
Tor
lol, now I'm totally convinced this whole thread is an elaborate troll. What's sad is the number of people who fell for it - wonder if they still will now that you've posted a link to this wildly inaccurate and biased raving lunatic.
Jack Chick makes everything about the Catholic Church look sane.
"No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction."
This is true in any organization, and is one of the inherent weaknesses of organized religion. That being said, the Catholic Church itself has, throughout the years, advocated everything from slavery, to torture, to execution.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I see you've played sig-gy spoon-y before...
If they are including their work by Martin Luther, who started the Reformation that split the Church then I'm pretty confident they'll have no problem with the fact that Catholic bibles and Protestent bibles aren't identical. The name just means 'Book' after all. (Biblios?)
kevin
Since when has slashdot started to advertise specific religions?! Screw you guys, I just don't believe in faery tales..
As soon as there is a post that mentions religion, the trolls come out of the wood work to flame and run. The really sad part is that this posting is of much more significance than religion. Some of those manuscripts may contain clues to unlock mysteries in history. A lot have nothing more that just historical significance, but that's enough. We should all be happy that more information is being put into the mainstream, not flaming it because we just don't like the people it's coming from.
Someone has unicorns on the mind.
Now, what would Freud say?
(har har)
Maybe the unicorns missed out on the ark?
Holy fuck, now you've been modded up on /. for posting a link to Jack Chick the insane right wing lunatic. Never thought I'd see the day - but I guess the anti-Catholic bias here is even stronger than the general anti-Christian one.
When the Bible was first assembled from the Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and the various letters of the apostiles to the early churches, there was much debate as to which versions of various books to include. Most of the books of the Bible had various differences as they were copied by various scribes attempting to preserve them before the first collections of them were gathered. Here's a good timeline of the history of the Good Book.
Furthermore, there's the Pseudepigrapha. These are rejected books of the Bible that scholars of various times either considered falsified or otherwise not worthy to include in the Bible. Usually, they purport to be written by a Biblical figure, but were generally not believed to have actually been written by them at the time of the Council of Laodicea. Then you have the books where are in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Protestant Old Testament. These are the books most commonly labelled as Apocrypha.
Here's some more info on early church texts.
Here's a FAQ on the history of the Bible.
You can find a lot of this on Google if you know what to look for, but I've been nice and included links without bizarre obscurist religious or UFO ranting. The "lost" books of the Bible are a rich source of material for people with fringe beliefs that are looking to justify them or people who have an axe to grind with mainstream Christianity.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Shouldn't that be GNU/Vatican?
Yes I have read it recently.
I think most of the disinterest is not because of the confusion but the misrepresentation of the so-called learned men. Lets face it. In how many wars have priest blessed both sides in the name of god?
For over a thousand years the Church has used it's power to squash out the truth, keep people down, and insinuate itself into governments, when as a representative of the Kingdom of God it has no business being involved.
I understand perfectly the frustration that many face.
The key is not to put faith in man and let him get between you and god.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
How much of that do you think they'll publish?
Who's coming with me?
I am.
Soo... Is Vatican/HP like GNU/Linux?
If so, is the library free? (as in speech or as in beer)
I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, but can I venture to say that "it is truly inconcievalbe that what you THINK Catholicism is is The Answer for you"? Hell, if it was anything close to what you say it is I never would have converted this past Easter. Count me as one of those who used to think much the same way you did, but when I actually began to read about it I discovered that I hated what everyone said Catholicism was, and not what it actually IS. There is a HUGE difference, as there is profound misconception out there about what the Church actually teaches.
inherently evil. Hard to keep track of that rascally Catholic church.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Why the hell do we need a "New Testament" anyway? What was wrong with the "Old, Origional Testament", you know, the real teachings of Christ?
/rant
Nevermind the fact that Paul, a ROMAN, who none of Jesus' other Followers/Relatives particularly cared for is the man responsible for Catholosism, and the beginnings of the "New Testament". The other Apostiles DID NOT LIKE HIM; they didn't trust him. If Jesu was the son of God, as they say, then all Catholics (most christians, in fact) have been worshiping false idols ever since. Jesus is NOT God! No matter how much your preist tells you, he is not. Jesus was not Omnicient, and Omnipresent, afterall, now was he?
What kind of God sends his son to pay for HIS sins, anyway?
Won't somebody please think of the kittens??
For the last 15 years, the Vatican has been working on transferring many texts and artwork to a secure digital format in hopes of saving it for all future generations.
Most of the text that the project has successfully transferred (and a good majority of text that has not been transferred) is available here. You do have to fill out some forms and then the materials are copied and sent to you.
All jokes and criticisms aside, the Vatican possesses the majority of the world's greatest works of literature, art, and historical documentation. I hope that they make all of it available to the world very soon.
'King James Version .... For example, '"Esther" is omitted (yes, I'm serious).'
Actually, Esther was in the original King James Version of the Bible. The 14 books of the Apocrypha were officially removed in 1885. See, e.g., this google search.
"he was referring to the claim that the Vatican would hide the records of such past sins. That claim was provided entirely without evidence, unless we're to believe that "that's just the sort of thing that those Catholics would do." To the extent that the original poster was implying that, I am rightly offended."
I think the poster was referring to what the Catholic Church tends to do; and I have to agree. Nobody likes to admit mistakes, and the Catholic Church is no different; they try to bury that which does not make the Church look good. Unless you're a Catholic Cardinal, I don't think you should be offended at all. Personally, as a Catholic myself, I'm offended by the way my Church has acted in the past and in the present. The Vatican has been ordering NDA's for settlements for years in abuse cases (despite calls for reconciliation by a number of bishops), and now one of the things the Vatican is fighting is reporting of molestation accusations to local authorities. That offends me greatly, as it should you and every other good and decent human being on this Earth. The poster wasn't Catholic-slamming, (s)he was Catholic Church-slamming; something I do every chance I get. Why? I'm Catholic, and I was taught that the stuff my church is doing is wrong.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
14 and counting.
What if there are works that don't dovetail with the accepted works? What if some writings in their collection outright contradict other writings?
There are already many, many works that don't quite jive with accepted beliefs and some that even contradict the teachings. When the new testament letters were being combined, there were many letters that were not accepted because there was not 100% certainty that they were not from one of the Apostles. Most of these letters are available today.
As for the some bibles not including some stories in the Old Testament, it goes back to when the Jewish community "cleaned up" the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and left out any text that was not written in Hebrew.
Conspiracy Theorist aside - The Vatican is usually very open about any information you would want, or need. The main role of the Catholic Church is to save souls, and to hide any relevant information would not be in their best interest (They want to save their souls too !).
Too bad the Catholic church isn't Christianity...
You're a moron. According to the dictionary, Christianity is defined as The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. That definition could be (and has, in the distant past) interpreted to mean that only Catholics are Christians. No matter what, the Church is founded on both scripture and tradition, which itself is merely interpretation of scripture. Take your fundie slander elsewhere, please.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Are you saying she's NOT sexy? Because you are wrong, pal.
It'll be lovely to parse through thousands of ancient documents, but for the non-scholar, most of this information will be no more than a pretty piece of paper. Now if only babblefish had a 'secret forbidden ancient manuscript' section, we'd all be happy.
So what I'm getting at is whether the Vatican plans on opening up all works for perusal or do they plan on omitting certain works based, possibly, on how well the information fits in with the desired line of thinking.
All the articles I saw seemed to suggest that only a selection of the 2m+ items in the library will be put online. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting to see anything listed on the index of forbidden works. The Catholic Church didn't spend the better part of two millennia dragging all social, scientific, and political progress to a standstill just so they could indict themselves for unparalleled crimes against humanity on their own website.
It's not that the Church has any problem with admitting that they were wrong, it's that they still think they were right.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
In a letter addressing the pastoral treatment of homosexuals, the Catholic Church gave what some perceive as permission (or at least acceptance) of violence towards homosexuals:
"People should not be surprised when a morally offensive lifestyle is physically attacked." --The Vatican
It would be a nice gesture, in my opinion, if the Vatican proved both the existence and authority of the superior deity which allows this "unsurprised" attitude toward physical violence. Until then, perhaps they should not be surprised when their own intolerant lifestyles are physically attacked.
[What's that smell? Ah, my karma burning.]
Your evidence being...
And don't say the Inquisition because that was a POLITICAL phenomenon carried out by the civil authorities in response to the very serious threat the Turks were posing to Eurpoe at the time.
used to be a comedy central joke.
"Now that the Vatican library is online, you can use your free hand to look up 'Touching Yourself in an Impure Manner.' "
Not a troll.
read for yourself this passage in 1 Tim 4:1-5 and make your own conclusions.
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
Inclusion of text into the bible was not arbitrary. Texts were chosen based upon a set of fairly clear criteria that became established over centuries of debate. Not everyone agrees with the final decision, but that hardly makes it arbitrary.
Additionally, BS Catholic conspiracies aside, they have no earthly reason to hide works that they disagreee with. In fact the works they are putting onine were already available to visiting scholars and practically anyone with an interest. I, for instance, have the full text on the 20-something different Gospels we have discovered to date at home on my shelf...and if you read them all, you'd see pretty quick why some were excluded. I also have the many of the other non-canonical texts. No great hidden secret. Just order them from Amazon like I did.
There is no great scholastic coverup to keep the juicy religious bits away from the masses.
Disclaimer: I am not Catholic, but I do have a degree in Religious Studies.
-Tom
Yes, if I only had modpoints today I'd blast both of SexyKellyOsborne's posts in this thread to oblivion.
No, rare texts are rare because few copies exist. Why not? For one thing, many of the books and manuscripts that we're talking about predate the printing press.
I know of a few famous texts, written before the advent of the printing press, that reached wide circulation. Name one? Oh... it's right at the tip of my tongue.
Sorry, can't remember at the moment. Maybe I'll get back to ya.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses [iclnet.org]? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"? That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates
And the Master [Sun Tzu] said: 'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles'
But seriously, Martin Luther was much more than just an enemy of the Vatican, he was also one of it's greatest reformers. Letters of forgiveness were eventually abandoned - in no small part due to his criticism.
Tor
It would be really great if they made scans of scores of medieval and renaissance sacred music available. For hundreds of years, church music was the only music written down. Plus, many of the choirbooks are works of art in themselves.
No disrespect to Martin Luther's handwritten notes, but give me Josquin Desprez's scores any day.
First off all the King James Version is protestant not catholic. You want something like the Saint Jerome Bible for a Catholic bible. Second the inclusion list for the Kind James isn't arbitrary its following the organization from Martin Luther's Geneva Bible.
e =UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&selm=4ne7kh%24qq6%40geneva.rutgers.e du
Anyway here is an old list with pretty good information about what got included when
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&i
Need more paint!
Love,
Michelangelo
PS: My back is killing me!
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
I think you're jumping to conclusions when you assume that the citation wasn't ironic.
I write in my journal
Couple of points:
(1) Esther is in both. The books that are not in both include Tobit (an excellent novel, worth reading, and amusing at some points. Did you know you get cataracts from sleeping outdoors with your eyes open? Birds poop in them, you see...), Maccabbees (an excellent documentary), Daniel and Susannah, maybe Wisdom.
(2) Martin Luther, if I understand correctly, picked the Hebrew Bible because he liked the feeling he got that he'd understand things better in the original Hebrew. The RC Church picked the Septuagint, which was archived in Greek in the Library of Alexandria, because this was archived *before* the time of Christ, and was generally accepted as scripture at the time of Christ. The Hebrew Bible was written by Sadducees after Masada, and does include some significant changes. Sadducces did not believe in the Resurrection, for example, and thus did not include books that pointed heavily towards the Resurrection. Also, "virgin" was changed to "maid" (neanis) at the part where the prophet says to the king "is it not enough that you should weary the ears of men? Must you weary God as well? But since you do not ask for a sign, this shall be a sign unto you: a virgin shall concieve, and shall bear a son..." One can only guess the reason for such a change.
There is something to be said for both sides. I prefer the RC side, though.
(3) Then you get to books like the Gospel of Thomas. This is a case where you especially have to look at the source. The paper is quite old, and indeed would be one of the earliest gospels based upon the age of the paper. However, the ink dates back to the time of the Saracen invasion of Spain, and the pollens in the ink seem to place the writing in Italy. So it would appear, especially since that book supports Islam more than Christianity, that it was a work of fiction written at that time. Perhaps it was written on very old paper to try to support Islam -- perhaps not.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Pretty argumentative. Sure, you can name one, but can you name 100? 1000? Texts written by hand before the invention of the press have to be wildly popular to remain in print. Even modern books go out of print, and become hard to get ahold of.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
n/t
And some Atheist would keep telling us that such contradictions disprove Christianity in general (which they don't)
These contraditions are in fact errors, and there are a great many errors in the bible at that. If you accept that these errors(contradicions) exist then you have to resonably believe that other facts presented might also be incorrect. Without the bible as a source of truth Christianity becomes arbitrary, something that people believe in because they were told they should(not that this excludes all other religions though).
When they put their copy of ol' Alhazrad's Necronomicon online then I'll be impressed.
Da Blog
AC for a reason...
All the stuff they would like to hide is in "The Library of the Inquisition". "The Libray of the Vatican" is the accessable holdings of the Vatican. There is still an office of the inquisistion and it is still active though it's name has changed several times over the last few centuries and it's mission is uhh quieter... This is the entity that confounds inquiry.
No. More /. posters should feel unrestrained to attack belief systems which:
1) are responsible for large amounts of documented hatred, intolerance, and violence, and
2) fail to prove the existence of a deity which their hatred, intolerance, and violence is committed in the name of.
Sure, but are you really in favor of wildly opinionated and unsupported attacks? That seems odd.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Looks like all those busted long haul transoceanic fiber companies will now have some users. I can only imagine how they are going to scan those documents in.
Anyone know if there is a good OCR program for ancient greek or latin?
I suppose they could use some sort of bitmap format at high rez. but that is gonna suck up some bandwidth.
I can also hear it now:
Mom - What are you doing up there on the computer at 2AM?
Kid - Honest mom, I was just reading Constantine's notes on the empire relocation!
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
That only shows that oral tradition has a reason. May i introduce you to the world of Homer, not the Simpson guy, but the blind greek poet who wrote the Illias and the Odysee?
... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
I thought it was a little funny that they were releasing "handwritten notes by the likes of Martin Luther". How much time in energy did they spend trying to shut him up?
Why would you? No, really.
sic transit gloria mundi
but can we read it?
Are they going to translate the works/documents, or put them up in the native raw text.
I would love to sift thru the piles of text, but I don't speak Latin, especially not Latin of 2000 years ago.
This is going to be an incredible tool for the educated, but nearly useless for the common folks. Afterall think about all the various translations of the Bible, the differing opinions on words, etc.
Who do we trust to translate these documents?
Tournament Management Online &
Yea, but its an interpreted document, and the interpretations were selected by councils, popes, etc.
When/who wrote it is less important than the uses it was put to, and the interpretations it inspired, and that was done by the church.
A complete record of all their changes of opinion, selective enforcement of canon law, and their political intrigues would make for very interesting reading.
Theres probably 2000 years of history in that library, all of it important, and all of it affecting the modern church. There's much more in there than just early copies of the New Testament gospels, and while important, the gospels are not the only thing that influenced, informed, and motivated the early church and early Europe.
Europe and the rest of the western hemisphere by extension owe their existence to the church, and as such, their history is really the history of the west. Keeping it locked up in the basement of the Vatican is not where this should be.
What? TLD's don't exist for the US states?
Is this internet thing, like, international or something? Call in the marines, I say!
- Colin
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Isn't that what realigion, well, is?
sic transit gloria mundi
to say your prayers before clicking the link, and you will be absolved.
Don't use python, and don't work on an Apple, and everything will be fine.
One of my first jobs while a grad. student was teaching at a Catholic college. I taught Philosophy of Language, but also Ethics. I was a bit worried about things with regard to the latter, being a semi-heathen. So, during the interview, I asked whether there was any requirement to toe the party line. I was given an emphatic "no". Indeed, I had no problems at all.
Best wishes, Bob
That sig reminds me of Jack Handy's work. They quote him on SNL a lot. I have a few of his books. Makes a great quick read.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
At least according to Google, The only source anybody lists for that quote is Peter McWilliam's book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in Our Free Country". The online edition (it's in a yellow box, find for "vatican") atribbutes it to "THE VATICAN", with no details about who exactly said it or when, and the book doesn't appear to have any footnotes.
--
Benjamin Coates
The Unicorn (Irish Rovers)
A long time ago, when the Earth was green,
There was more kinds of animals than you've ever seen.
And they ran about and played while the Earth was being born,
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn.
There was green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the unicorn.
The Lord seen some sinning and it caused Him pain.
And He said, "Stand back, I'm going to make it rain!"
He said, "Hey, Brother Noah, I'll tell you what to do,
Go and build me a floating zoo,"
"and take some".......
"Green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born.
Don't you forget My unicorns."
Old Noah was there to answer the call,
He finished up the ark just as the rain started to fall.
Then he marched in the animals two by two,
And he called out as they came through,
"Hey Lord,"
"I've got green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but Lord, I'm so forlorn,
I just can't find no unicorns!"
And Noah looked out through the driving rain,
Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games.
Kicking and splashing while the rain was pourin',
Oh, them silly unicorns!
There was green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Noah cried, "Close the door because it's starting to storm,
And we just can't wait for those unicorns!"
The ark started moving, it drifted with the tide,
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried.
And the waters came down and sort of floated them away,
That's why you never see unicorns to this very day.
You'll see some green alligators and long-necked geese,
Lots of humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,
You're never gonna see a unicorn!
---
*sniffle* I miss the unicorns.
Kevin
Check it out here
;)
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
Your assertion the Jesus is "NOT" God is incorrect, from a Roman Catholic perspective. The dogma of the Holy Trinity holds that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are one, and indivisible in nature. They are all God.
I'm pretty sure even the protestant faiths (at least the ones I'd call mainstream) hold the same beliefs.
This would probably have no additional effects, as there are already self-contradictions within the bible.
Can you name one?
Most of the so-called contradictions are either translation errors or time differentials. (Ex: During WWII, "Germans are Bad." In 2000: "Germans are just peachy.")
SexyKellyOsboure is the finest troll this board has ever seen!
1) Maybe the Universe is not a creation, not a gift, not Authored, neither Spoken nor Named into being. Maybe it doesn't even have Being, and is therefore outside the bounds of your metaphysics.
2) If you can't make decent arguments for the existence of Santa Claus, your case is hopeless.
a) Santa exists because he is believed to exist--known to theologians as "The Yes, Virginia Argument."
b) Santa exists as representation for things which are primarily attributes of beings or things that exist.
c) Santa exists as a manifestation of the Good. The Good is apprehended as an abstraction and reason, but is neither image nor symbol. The Good is pure eidos.
d) Santa exists because I want to him to, and the whole Universer revolves around me. You can't prove otherwise.
e) It makes more sense to say that Santa exists than to argue against it, because it's just too complicated to explain all the affirmative signs of Santa's existence. The so-called "myth" of Santa Claus is in fact the most elegent way of explaining all those funny costumes and European Christmas traditions.
f) If you write a letter to Santa Claus, the USPS will deliver it. (Often cited as a supporting fact for the "Yes, Virginia Argument," although the logic is quite independent.)
g) Ask some children who care about such things. If more children say Santa Claus exists, then it is wise to agree. There's little point in arguing with children.
I don't think you've read much of the bible to understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments. I suggest you do so.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Some chapters are omitted from Protestant Bibles... or some chapters are added in Catholic Bibles?
I'm looking at a Jewish Bible right here, and Esther (an Old Testament book) jibes precisely with the King James - same number of chapters and same number of verses in each chapter.
In case you want to verify this, take note of the following: In Christian Bibles, Esther comes between Nehemiah and Job. In the Jewish Bible, Esther (Ester) comes between Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Daniel (Dani'el).
If I were wrong, there would be more than enough people to explain why I'm mistaken and stupid
(raises hand) Ooh! Ooh! Can I be first?
It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
The Church is a hierarchy indeed, just like any other organization. I'm pretty sure that's part of what makes an organization an organization. However, coughing up cash doesn't garauntee any sort of salvation. In fact, it was until only recently by papal decree that Works were considered as important as Faith in detirmining your eternal destination. Works would include donations. Faith would include prayer.
And the cathedrals!
"And the Whitehouse!" People would have a lot less pictures of Europe if it weren't for these amazing structures. Every major religion has some sort of elaborate temple-like structure. This is because any church is made up of people who like to have a pretty building in which to worship. Makes them feel closer to God. Anyone with any common sense knows this.
Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Even if that were true, don't you think the Roman Empire deserves mention? Just shows your ignorance.
It existed for how many centuries before the people even understood a single word of mass?
It also kept the written word in existence in many parts of the world. Much of modern mathematics and philosophy is derived from work done by Catholic monks. You are also wrong in other ways: the Mass wasn't said exclusively in Latin until centuries after it was said for the first time, and Latin isn't exactly a secret language. Many church-goers understood what they were saying. I read a little Latin myself, in fact.
There has never been any type of openness or disclosure about what the Catholic church is up to,[...]
Now you're not even making sense. Since when? Have all 1 billion of us been keeping secrets from the rest of the world? I lived in a monastery for over a year. I didn't find out anything I couldn't have learned from history books. Do you have any first-hand, intimate knowlege of the topics you're discussing? No, a few years of Catholic school don't count.
This certainly won't be the dawning of a new age of responsibility, accountability, righteous ethics, or social service in the Church.
Says who? You? Bah! For one, the Church is the single largest charitable organization in the world. Its track record for social service is plain.
Who's next?
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope researched the topic of Vatican porn. His findings are here
I remember reading somewhere that the Vatican had the worlds largest collection of erotic literature. I wonder if that is included in the "library" that they are putting on-line.
If they did, it would sure beat the Spammed Usenet sewers, or the half-spammed Google groups.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
you know the one I'm talking about. "God cannot be contained within a church, only in your heart." -JC
I guess it wouldn't since the vatican doesn't reconize it anyways. I've only seen history channel stuff about the first dead sea scroll supposedly written by Jesus - does anyone have a non geocities url that is informative?
But above all what the poster and most others fail to do is to distinguish between what Catholics do and what the Church teaches.
/. are by and large intelligent. (Mod me +1 "insightful" for that statement.)
For instance, I have it on good authority that the first leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Simon Peter, actually denied that he was friends with Jesus just before J.C.'s execution.
Point being: Individual actions of people -- even famous people -- who belong to a group do not = the beliefs of the group.
Side note -- it is often said that Ghandi once said, "I would have been a Christian if it wasn't for all the Christians."
People who read
There certainly seems to be a lot of un-thought through anti-relgious (and anti-Christian) bigotry floating around among this crowd, though. (Mod me -1 "troll" for that statement)
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
"he Catholic Church itself has, throughout the years, advocated everything from slavery, to torture, to execution
Your evidence being..."
The Maleus Malificarum. The inquisition was not the response of the civil authorities to the Turks.
> I'll most likely be modded as flame bait
No you won't. The only way to get modded down in this discussion is to profess to be a follower of a religion (in particular Catholic).
In all the years spent as an Atheist (really more agnostic, at least while intoxicated), never had any problems BECAUSE of my non-beliefs...
I find it humorous to listen to people bitch about being persecuted for being atheist. Why? Most of the time that "persecution" revolves around the fact that someone at some point have the NERVE to say they followed some religion and maybe ask if they did or had heard of it. That's not persecution that's conversation. Tell'm to shutup and they typically will. Other complaints about persecution revolve around those fundies of all religions (be they Krishna's or whatever) who seem determined to bug them at airport/subway or ring the bell on weekends with junk. Annoying? Yes. Persecution no.
There is little, if no, persecution for being an atheist in the USA. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Show me the facts and figures where people are losing their jobs, houses or being treated like second-class citizens because they don't profess some faith.
I see a crap load more persecution these days of anyone who professes some sort of faith, be it Wiccan, Christian, Moslem or whatever, than I see of atheists. Maybe it's just because I've lived places where Christians and the like would get eaten for lunch.
BTW Whadda want to bet this winds up at a -1 Flamebait because I dared to not to the party line...
Bugs Bunny was right.
But they LIKE to bash Catholicism, and when they lose an argument, they go into hiding and attack another person defending it later, usually on another forum on another website.
Plenty of people hate what they think is the Catholic Church. Very little people, if any, hate what IS the Catholic Church.
As far as a few years of Catholic school goes, I've known people who know more about Catholicism from reading books on their own time, outside of Catholic schools. I've known people who've left Catholicism even after years and years of Catholic School because of their misconceptions - obviously they weren't paying attention to what was being taught, as some of them have come away with some real loony ideas of what Catholicism is.
Unless you've read a great deal of books approved by the Catholic Church on Catholicism, spending X amount of years in a Catholic school means little to nothing, if you come away from it with ideas and misconceptions that are 100% wrong, and conflict with what was taught in the first place.
At least a few individuals have the patience to sit here and type out a few responses to the idiocy. One of the most misunderstood periods of Christian history is the crusades, and of course people have and will continue to post in forums like this saying it was a money making scheme and what not..
AntiCatholics love to shout, "Inquisition! Crusades!" Etc. with little knowledge of the actual history.
How ignorant, typical, and sad.
These people need to start reading some good Catholic books and know what the religion's all about prior to bashing.
But, I doubt many of them will.
Do you write "etc." as "et c." to appear more sophisticated?
It looks really pretentious.
Now, perhaps, I'll find the reason that the Gospel of St. Thomas was kept out of the New Testament. Which is interesting considering that the experts think it's the oldest, and most accurate, version....
Actually the Vatican approached us when I was working at a consultancy (not IBM) to do this project. "Mmm, cool," thought I. "They have loadsa money."
Ah, but not so, grasshopper. We met with their librarians and "IT" people and when it came to money, not only did they try and make us feel guilty about charging the Church (I'm Jewish..that didn't work on me) but they wanted us to PAY for the privilege. Yes, we would eat all production costs, hardware, hosting, travel costs, encoding, delivery, etc...AND we were expected to make a "sizable honorarium" to the RCC for the privilege of being permitted to work on the project. (Picture: Ellen Feiss going "nnnnggggh?")
"Hmm, well they have lots of money...they'll pay us for the next project," thought I.
Ah, not so. When I asked as to $$ arrangements for future work we were told that if they liked the library project, we could expect more work, but each project would require an additional honorarium.
"Wow, look at the time, I gotta run," said I. We never even considered doing the work.
Looks like HP got the same treatment, as evidenced by this line in the press release:
"HP's contribution included technical consulting along with donated computer servers, scanners and other hardware items.
Didier Philippe, HP's director of strategy and development in Europe, said the motivation for the donation had more to do with history and art than with business.
But he recognized that the Catholic Church could be a huge buyer."
So they are HOPING the RCC buys some hardware in the future, after they already gave them a couple mil worth of free stuff. Great business sense, eh?
I'm calling my broker now.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Look! It's still there in the KJV! Scroll down about 1/3 of the page and you'll seen Esther with ten chapters.
It's been in every version of the Bible I've ever seen, including the 1889 Darby Bible. Of course, the additional apocryphal text is not there.
I *knew* it was a for-profit venture.
I have no life. *breaks down crying*
Correct you are. All I can think was I was thinking Esdras and got thrown off by what I was responding to... yeah, that's the ticket...
You don't really know anything about The Bible, Catholisism, or Christianity at all, do you?
The New Testament was written because of Jesus, who is described as the Son of God. Jesus, who is recognized as a actual historical figure (although his divine heritage is debated), is written as having performed various miracles, declared a new covenant in his blood, and was arrested and crucified for his beliefs. The New Testament is primarily, about Jesus's life, death, rebirth, and this new covenant, although it does also cover several other subjects.
The Old Testament, (known as the Torah, if you're Jewish), covers the orgin of the Universe, the creation of man, Abraham, the Ark, The 10 Commandments, quite a large amount of "begetting", and people doing very bad things and being punished for it. Jesus doesn't have anything to do with it, he isn't in the picture yet.
And if you are Christian, Jesus IS God. He is a part of the Holy Trinity, which includes God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). Separate but equal. Also, if you are Christian, he IS Omnicient, and Omnipresent. He knew that he was to be betrayed, and who his betrayer was. He died because he was chosen for that fate, and he rose to life again.
Whether or not the other Apostles liked Paul is irrelevant. I seriously doubt the Apostles liked "doubting Thomas" (what, you didn't know where that saying came from?) very much either. The Apostles were chosen for a purpose, and I really don't think whether or not they got along really matters in the long run. In fact, I believe any stories about the Apostles having personal problems with each other would make them more real, make them more accessible.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
There in fact was a Bishop in the Viking settlement in New Foundland who did (while briefly) have some correspondence with an other Bishop in Iceland. Whether the Church was able to conclude that from this Bishop's experiences there in fact was a "new world" is pretty unknowable. They likely didn't even think much about it at all.
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
You have a good point, but we're not really talking about a person here. Since God is supposedly an all-powerful being, who's to say he/she/it can't be three people at once? It's the same issue I take with people how insist on referring to God as "He". What need does God have for a gender?
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
If the banner above is flashing you might go to heaven?
Priests, click here instead of abusing the children in your church. Look, but don't touch.
Okay, that was bad, I'm going to hell...
Given that most of what the vatican "owns" it stole during the crusades and its long, less than compassionate history of pillaging.
You are correct about the Protestant part. "Protestant" was created because of disagreements with decisions and politics of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and disagreements regarding translations and intent of The Bible. The core values and concepts are the same.
The only two that would really come up as exceptions to this idea are Jehovah's Witnesses, which have some beliefs that are kind of in left field as far as the other Christian sects are concerned, and the Mormons, who have a third Testament.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Wow.. I really didn't expect that!! I guess nobody does..
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
while he took criticism at the Catholic Church's practices, he was not advocating a new religion nor church. It was only after he was forced to seek refuge in Saxony, and he had an army of followers did anything tantanount to a religion form. furthermore...
Luther was first a German nationalist. (And rabid anti-semite). he had long been upset at what he saw as foriegn potentates (i.e. popes) usurping from German princes the control over their lands. That was one of his biggest beefs.
His was an argument that dated back to a guy named Henry IV, who challenged the pope on appointing of bishops, which by default menat control of church lands. He wrote against things like the Concordat of Worms, and the Treaty of Constance. Luther was a supported of royal appointed clergy. So he sided with the kings, or in German lands, the princes. Many of his writings were not so much anti-clerical as anti church practices. Many of these the church has since abandoned.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Netcraft has confirmed - Catholocism is dying!
I heard some sad news on talk radio today...
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Scientology wants to be both, but is neither of the two.
I certainly did not mean to imply some cabalistic conspiracy. But I am suggesting that the Vatican might be hesitant to go out of their way to invite problems.
That's all.
My
Limekiller
The confusion over the book of Esther (and Daniel) stems from the part that these books have additional chapters in the Catholic canon. For instance, the Catholic book of Daniel includes the chapter on Bel and the Dragon, and the Catholic version of Esther has some additional content such as the prayers of Mordecai, the text of the royal decrees, etc., which is generally regarded as apocryphal by Protestant and Hebrew scholars.
Tcl my Pico! There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Neither omitted nor added, exactly, though maybe saying omitted from Protestant bibles is closer to the truth.
This is a gross oversimplification, but there are two major forms of the OT involved here: the Massorah (Hebrew, first millennium AD), and the earlier Septuagint (Greek, ~2nd century BC). Neither is the original Hebrew, though to put it in perspective, they are better attested than most accepted historical documents of the era.
There aren't huge differences between them for the most part, but the Septuagint contains the additional books in question. It also (generally) matches the Dead Sea scrolls more closely than the Masoretic.
Palestinian Jews of Christ's era spoke primarily Greek and Aramaic (as a result of the Persian/Syrian/Alexandrian conquests), and consquently used the Septuagint. Naturally the early church also used it (OT quotations in the NT are from the Septuagint).
Modern Jews do use the Massorah. Luther and later Protestant reformers also adopted their canon from the set of Masoretic books, but to the best of my knowledge up until the Reformation, Christians used the OT canon as in the Septuagint.
IIRC, the Greek Orthodox church actually still uses the Septuagint directly, since they never made the switch to Latin.
Modern translations (whatever canon they use) often look at both the Septuagint and Masoretic copies (in addition to other sources), since they both offer valuable material for the translator.
I'd encourage you to research the history of the various documents on your own -- I am not an expert and this is only a very cursory treatment.
DNA just wants to be free...
First off all the King James Version is protestant not catholic.
Acutally the Authorised/King James version is Anglican. You'll hardly ever see it in the US, but King James's translators definitely did translate the Apocrypha and a complete edition of the KJV will include those texts.
Check the
Articles of Religion for the Anglican view of the Apocrypha.
Second the inclusion list for the Kind James isn't arbitrary its following the organization from Martin Luther's Geneva Bible.
The Geneva Bible had nothing to do with Luther. It was the work of English exiles in Geneva during the reign of Mary Tudor. It is much more Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) in outlook than Luther would have been.
The books included in the Protestant canon are those selected in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The idea that Pius XII did and said nothing about Nazism is about as true as the idea that the holocaust never happened. Also, no one ever mentions the fact that MILLIONS of CATHOLICS were also put to death by Hitler. Yes, it's true. Read a history book if you don't believe me.
As for the idea that Pius XII didn't speak out, I suggest everyone read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/piusjews.htm
It even quotes the New York Times of the day giving MUCH well-deserved praise to Pius XII.
I hope this get's modded up...
I've dealt with the man, he bases all opinions about anything on opinion and hear-say. If you show proof his is incorrect about something, he just barley stops short of puting his hands on his ears and going la-la-la-la.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even though Jack Chick is a loon, that's neither here nor there. What is the definition of a Christian? One who follows the tenets of the Bible (the teachings of Christ). You are a Muslim because you follow the Koran. If you do not follow the Bible, you are something ELSE, not a Christian. If Catholics READ the Bible, instead of allowing the clergy to interpret them instead, they'd see that what the Catholic church teaches and what the Bible says are complete opposite. Just because Catholics believe in Jesus just means they believe in the HISTORICAL Jesus. That's like saying I believe in electricity.Saying you follow his teachings, yet don't is being something else. I Timothy says not to follow those who forbid marriage! That's one example.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
I only go by what the Bible says, not tradition....it's not slanderous. Go to http://justforcatholics.org for more info....
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
Unix is a standard, DOS is a standard, windows XX is not.
I beleive the Vatican still has the world's largest collection of obscene material, used for "research purposes" locked away in a basement. (Hey, as long as it keeps 'em away from the alter boyz, it's ok with me...) So what are the chances of them putting THAT library online?
I know this is a bit off topic, but when I clicked on the link for news.google.com, there was a link at the top to a story titled "Vatican/HP To Put Library Online" (sound familiar?). Clicking on that link, I was confused to find that I was at the Slashdot article. Turns out that news.google.com is referring to the Slashdot story that refers to the news.google.com story - WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END???
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
I was browsing through the U.S. State Department's online "dossier of countries" (whatever it's called), which includes some interesting statistics for each country.
The Vatican is the only country in the world to have a literacy rate of 100%. (Granted, there's only a few thousand citizens, but still...)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Collections of the earliest manuscripts are called codices, and are given a name usually based on where the codex was first discovered, or is kept.
Codices and variants on codices are also given single-character abbreviations. I have a very good book on how Bible translations are done, but I can't reach it right now (broken leg), anyhow I believe "B" is one of the more complete manuscripts ever.
The contents of the early manuscripts can be fascinating. For example, the Lord's Prayer originally didn't end like it does today.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
#1 provider of care of AIDS. Nice.
Now please tell us how you reconcile that with "condoms are immoral and unbiblical." Take your time. I'll be here.
You keep posting this crap throughout this thread, but I suspect you're as much a Catholic as Francis Kissling.
Naturally, the anti-Catholic/Christian bigots which infest this place keep modding you up.
Ummm, all of those works are readily available to scholars. No one is hiding GThomas or any of the other works, not even the non-cannonical gospels (which have interesting things in them, like a giant talking cross coming out of the sky--no, even the ancients didn't believe these works were inspired; they weren't that credulous).
This conspiracy stuff you seem to be putting forth is nonsense. Go read if yourself if you don't believe me.
Some of the posters here should go learn french or german and start reading Gérald Messadié's work.
...
....
...
... it used to be
the inquisition, now these same folks are against
abortion, safe sex and the marriage of priest.
As one catholic mercenary said upon entering a
city "infested" with heretics and asked by his
men how they should go about identifying true
catholics from heretics: "Kill them all, God
will recognize his people." ... He sure has, he sure
has ...
Unfortunatley, his only book available in english is his "A History of the Devil" (see it on Amazon), which hardly conveys the breadth and impact the stuff he's written.
This isn't some conspiracy theory wacko, but really a guy that dedicated 20 years of his life at actually revealing what the new testament really contains. I would have usually dismissed claims such as his, but he does layout the proof and asks to be shown wrong.
Basically, Jesus never died on the cross. He fainted, was taken off the cross, hidden while he healed, fled to Damascus and from there to India where is currently burried: a few pictures of the tomb (unfortunately this I'm not sure all that is on that site textually is accurate, but the pictures are).
What was his name in India? "Yuz Azaf", pretty close phonetically to the arameic "yusu". Why did Maria think he was a gardner when she saw him after his death? Because he had shaven his beard. What's that have to do with gardning? In old Jerusalem some workers didn't have the privilege of wearing a beard, gardners were some of those. Yes, but they put a spear through his side and water came out of it? Jesus was crucified around April, which is pretty cold in Jerusalem. When you are cold your plevra (the envelope that holds your lungs) gets filled with a water-like liquid. But he couldn't have survived that? Yes he could, read up on some of what WWI (or previous wars) wounded went through.
Jesus never claimed that he was the messiah. If you don't believe this then try to find the passage in the new testament that he says he is. You won't find it because he never does, not even once.
The reason Paul claims that he met Jesus on his way to Damascus was because Jesus was indeed hiding there and Paul did indeed meet him in flesh and blood.
Yes, but how can you claim that he didn't die on the cross? Do a little research. By all standards crucifixion was an old punishement even by first century standards. We have a lot of texts which show that someone that was crucified could stay up there for up to a week before actually dying. That's why the new testament insists on the fact that they didn't break Jesus' legs. They usually have to do that so that the poor bastard dies faster. Jesus was up there for less that 6 hours, they didn't break his legs or break his scull (which they sometimes did). He didn't die up there, he fainted. The guards were probably bribed to take him off of there. Proof, Pilate doesn't believe his ears when they tell him that Jesus is dead and actually sends a guard to verify this.
One more thing, the first century tomb I allude to above has a stone slab in it that is quite revealing as to the identity of the person being buried in it. The slab has an over-sized carving of two footprints. These footprints are characterized by assymetric crescent-like markings which are distinctive of a person being crucified.
Unfortunately, no one can open or even approach this tomb at this point in time. Why? Because it's in Srinigar which lies in the region of Kashmir that is disputed between India and Pakistan. If you've been following the news lately then you understand that all of us western boys and western girls are not welcome there. Not to mention that even the locals get caught in nasty killing sprees
Yah, but how th f"/$"%k did Jesus get to India? They used to call it the Silk Road
No need for any secret book, really. Now, if only I could get a copy of the original of Josephus' manuscripts; the ones where he actually tells the truth about Jesus, not the doctored ones we currently have where he is made to say that Jesus is the messiah and so on. Bet they have one of those in the Vatican's library
Oh, and I forgot to add that I did go to mass on every Sunday 'til I was 23. Nowadays I follow what Jesus taught, not what Paul and his lunatic fringe have been using to justify every possible lunacy for the past 2000 years
Very few /.-ers are historians, or very interested in history unless we're talking about 8-bit hardware. The greatest contribution of Christianity, in my opinion (former Catholic school kid), is all those dutiful monks painstakingly copying documents that otherwise would have perished in the Dark Ages. Now we'll get to see some more of 'em. As someone pointed out, maybe not anything that could embarrass the church, but who knows?
Was going to moderate the parent of this comment; unfortunately you can't moderate something as "just plain stupid". Honestly. Chick tracts.
The Pope isn't lurking /. with unlimited mod points.
Are you sure? Taco's been awfully friendly to him. As recently as when Geeks In Space aired, at least. Maybe Kurt's been given an editor account.
alright, let's say those people don't know anything about the Catholic religion. Since you know everything and also are not a practicing Catholic I guess those people are right than aren't they? Religion is a sham.
OR the gospel of Thomas is real, and the rest are works of fiction.
Or we stumbled upon something like the works of Hans Cristian Anderson of the time.
Imagine 2000 years from now people using HCAs works as a bible.
It would be pretty funny to us. Maybe there's 2000 year old dead guys laughing at us?
May I ask what the titles are? I've also been trying to find a copy of the full collection of dead sea scrolls they release not long ago. I think it was fourteen volumes?
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
Main (English) site: http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
v at_secret_ archives/index.htm
s /vat_secret_ archives/collections/index.htm
_ secret_ archives/docs/documents/vsa_doc_10121999_regeng_en .html
..... ..... ..... ... There follow 21 rules, the most interesting to me was:
_ secret_ archives/docs/documents/vsa_doc_06082002_intro_en. html
The link at the top left of the first page
goes to (seriously) the
Vatican Secret Archives
http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/
There are some very nice images shown,
along with a great deal of Italian text.
Example:
http://www.vatican.va/library_archive
shows the following:
- Historical Documents of the Vatican Secret Archives [Italian]
- Seals reproduction of the Vatican secret Archives [Italian]
- CD ROMs of the Vatican Secret Archives [Italian]
- Publications of the Vatican Secret Archives [Italian]
Just about everything is in Italian, except for the bits in Latin.
This link:
http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/vat
takes you to a page showing:
THE VATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES
(opened to the public by Pope Leo XIII)
RULES FOR SCHOLARS
[
#19
Admission to the Archives carries with it the obligation
to send the Prefecture one copy of any publication
(articles in journals, exhibition catalogues, books etc.)
in which documents from the Archives are used or cited.
]
Note: This page:
http://www.vatican.va/library_archives/vat
has some useful information,in English, about
the Documents of the Vatican Secret Archives.
Scroll down to the very end to find a link
to the Collections Index in PDF form.
The PDF file "indexEN.PDF" is only 486 KB.
Even though it SAYS that it is an English index,
it actually is still mostly Italian and Latin.
SWIT
Well, all these old bible texts are all well and good...but when will they put up texts from the infamous "Z Library"? (all the uncensored, unedited books of scripture, and all the black magic stuff.)
No, it was religious. It was meant against hereticals, and the trials were by clerics according to canonical law.
Only after a religious trial, and with full support from the Roman hierarchy.
Huh? The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans), but the Inquisition ranged from the Americas to Prussia. And it was not target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
That he wasn't, except retroactively in Papist spin. Simon Peter was one of the leaders (Apostles) of the so-called Primitive (first century) Church, together with Paul of Tarsis and Yagov the Just (James the brother of the Lord) among others, perhaps 12 in total. Actually Paul is the most influent in Scripture, and Yagov was probably the most respected of the original Apostles due to his blood brotherhood with the Messiah, to his living in Jerusalem, and to his reputation for fairness and pureness of heart.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Actually "Catholic" means "Universal", and thus apply to the set all faithful Christians, the specifics is known only to God. That the Roman Church calls itself Catholic is but propaganda.
The name was more properly applied in the middle ages to denote all the people who subscribed to the orthodox doctrines, but the whole point was lost when the Roman Church got corrupted from too much power and the Eastern Church got corrupted by submission to temporal power. Even so the name was never intended to denote an institution, just a body of people.
Anyway when there was the split between Rome and the East, both sides lost rights to the title "Catholic". Perhaps Rome lost it more clearly, because its doctrines had changed more, and strikingly continue to do so; by any standards but itself's, Rome is heretical against the Scriptures and the Apostles' standards, and becomes even more so every few decades by proclaiming new, Scripturally unwarranted dogma. The same holds mostly true for the Eastern churches, and BTW for all the self-named Catholic church at least since the Iconoclasts were defeated, and probably since somewhat before Constantine; it's just more striking about Rome.
The few Protestants who really know some History still call themselves Catholic, but with an eyewink. We know Rome won the propaganda war to call itself Catholic. Think Wintel calling Unix on RISC "proprietary" and itself "open standards".
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Actually you contradict yourself.
The orthodox, universal, apostholic and Scriptural historical doctrine of the Trinity says "One God, Three Persons". The One God is said to be not only One being, but a Triune one. While you can think of "parts" of God as you did, you can't think of modes or functions as in your analogy with a man; this would be the so-called modal heresy. Your error appeared when you wrote "a person can't be three people", because it is not one person and three people, but three persons in one being.
It is not clear by any means, but that's what comes of the finite (us) thinking about the infinite (Him).
Please read the Creeds, specially the Athanasian. And look for "The Forgotten Trinity" from James White.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
He didn't. I do and I don't like it.
So called High Criticism is just applying to Scripture a methodology that has long been discredited in both History and Literature.
I forgot the specifics, but around and after the turn from the XIX to the XX century there was an academic fashion that denied the historical existence of several authors, from Homer to Shakespeare. This based on differences found thru textual analysis between several texts attibuted to the same author.
The fashion got discredited both because of the good historical evidence for several so "deconstructed" authors and because it was realised that the differences found thru textual analysis where there for good reasons: different themes being tackled in different styles and forms at different times by the same author.
Archaeological discoveries of manuscripts and other evidence keep putting nails to High Criticism's coffin.
That Scriptural High Criticism still gets a following a century after being discredit says more about its proponents than about Scripture.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
At the request of the civil authorities without the support of the Pope.
full support from the Roman hierarchy.
not true
The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans)
Outrageously inaccurate. Southern Spain was taken and occupied by the Turks and was in serious danger of falling completely. This was the major inroad made by the Turks into Europe.
ot target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
The Inquisition that most people think of happened in Spain directed at Turks long before (hundreds of years) any major reformist movment threatened the Church.
Actually, no. You are ignoring the fact that if that were all there were to it, it would go away in about one generation. Rather, there is a ton of personal experience that supports it, in every generation. Some of that experience -- a lot of it -- is mundane: the confirmation of Biblical truths in our everyday lives. Other is supernatural: God does work miracles in our lives, sometimes: just read "The Cross and the Switchblade."
For contrast, consider how the WWII generation often either got married in less-than-perfect circumstances, or concieved before they were actually married. They then told their kids "well, don't do it before you get married, just because it looks bad." Their kids, the baby boomers, took that for what it was -- hypocrisy -- and ignored it. Thus we got the sexual revolution (yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but it's approximately correct. The seeds of the sexual revolution were spawned in the WWII generation's personal choices).
In the same way, if it were just "we were told that it was good to believe" Christianity would not last more than a generation. Christianity lasts because it has truth, and because God reinforces it continually.
As far as the errors go, yes: some of the contridictions are errors, and some are not even contradictions, just an individual's misunderstanding. But it is an item of faith the God will not let the vital parts be wiped out.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
So, I tried translating this page from Italian using babelfish (ignoring the irony), but the translation left a lot to be desired. For example:
Historical documents of the Secret Archives Vatican
* Liber Diurnus
* Agreed of Worms
* Diploma of Federico the Barbarossa
* All your base are belong to us
Quite disappointing, I must say...
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
see www.dirtroad.org
I've read the Koran three times now. The first time was as a youth searching for a divine nugget. It struck me as disappointingly uninspiring. The second time was in 1998 to look for prophecy and found only a repetitive message akin to brainwashing. The third time, I admit to being leery of it, and found it to have been written with help that is far from divine.
The translation I used of the Koran seems virulent but probably not the most so, as many are available. It is just chance that I currently have access to one translated in 1930 by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and printed by the government of Mir Osman Ali Khan, the late nizam of Hyderabad-Deccan. I've cross referenced some of the verses in other Korans and found them sometimes slightly differing in meaning, and the verses I refer to can sometimes be off by one or more verses in different translations so any passage I refer to could be the verse above or below it, if not immediately obvious.
There are claims that the Koran is similar to Sanskrit and Tamil texts as evidenced by the Koran not conforming to Arabic grammar. Over 100 aberrations were noted by Mahmud-oz-zamakshari and he stated the Koran was not miraculous. There are parts imitative of a Syrian poet and Ali Dashti in his book "23 Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed" (published 1985) draws attention to these probable sources. Mohammed also used Al-Ukdal-Fareed, the 25 chapters called 'Jaw-hara' (the Pearl) from which to pillage verses for his surahs. This was written by Ibn Abd Rabbi'hil Andalusi who was born in 246AD and died in 327AD.
So if the Koran is based on cribbed together writings and dubious other religious texts, this really casts doubt on the divine source. Some people (yes, anti-Muslims) have suggested that Mohammed had epileptic fits, and his own mother had declared him possessed by a devil. Regardless of these claims, it seems highly suspect to find castigation of an enemy uncle and a confirmation that an adopted son should divorce his wife so that Mo' can marry her in it's suras. This seems way too convenient to just happen to fit in with Mo's mindset, for surely if God really wanted such a thing, he could have just willed it?
Consider something like sura 33:36 which states, '....when allah and his messenger have decided an affair...' and goes on to say you shouldn't question it. Well how convenient for him that god has Mo' for a partner.
There are other reasons to suspect that the claimed divine revelation is actually a satanic source, if not simply from Mo's fevered brow, but I'll get more into that later
The Muslim world has generated suicide bombers and terrorists galore. The Koran stokes these fires of hatred. There are numerous promises of paradise for the slain and booty for the alive. A typical one is sura 4:74, 'Whoso fighteth in the way of allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward'.
Sura 5:33 threatens death, crucifixion or hands and feet cut off for those that strive against allah. Christians and non-moslems beware! Anyone that isn't a follower of islam is classed as causing corruption to the earth and is therefore to be killed. The two suras just mentioned are only two of many, many such threats and intimidations. Read sura 9:5 that says to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, etc etc etc.
The Muslim apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists aren't real Muslims. This reminds me of when the Soviet Union had its communist grip on Eastern Europe. When one pointed out that it was a crap system with food shortages, queues for everything and nothing working properly, the red propagandists would claim that the real communists weren't in charge. Today we have a similar situation with Islamic propagandists saying the terrorists aren't representative, despite the bombers and hijackers claiming action for Allah.
Unfortunately, the whole tenor of the Koran is one that dwells on slaughter and the doom of unbelievers. The Hadiths are even worse and talk of violence against Jews especially. It says even the trees and bushes will say there are Jews hiding behind them, and they should then be killed.
Now the koranicists tell me that I am taking passages about annihilating towns after warning them, out of context. The threats and promised destruction of surah 17:16 towards a town is supposedly a general warning from allah. But if I don't see it that way, then why should an uneducated muslim? He could well think the verses saying 'we will destroy them and slaughter them where we find them' are general exhortations for the cause. Certainly the well educated terrorists seem to interpret it that way.
And if such passages are so ambiguous, then why would God choose to express himself in such an imprecise language. Did God really send Jesus to tell us plainly to love our enemy and turn the other cheek, yet then send mohammed to tell us to revel in their destruction?
Now the Muslims say that they only fight those that started it first, those who cause trouble or 'fasad' are apparently fair game for slaughter. The Koran says 'persecution is worse than slaughter'. Quite a difference from turning the other cheek. However, some Muslims seem persecuted by the mere presence of non-moslems. This was the reasoning behind attacks on the USS Cole, that they didn't like Americans in their waters or based on the soil of Saudi Arabia, whether invited or not. Yet these people that feel so persecuted will tell you of how merciful and big hearted Mohammed was to Jews, and how Christians cried when Muslims removed their presence from them in Syria or someplace.
This is clearly propaganda and nonsense to claim that non-Muslims felt protected by Muslims when the Koran tells them to be compassionate to Muslims but to show harshness to others. The Jews fled the Romans and settled all over Arabia, becoming a majority in Yathrib. They took Mohammed in when he needed a base, and their eventual reward was to be expelled or worse from their own city, which was then renamed Medina. If Mohammed was so kind, then how come there's no Jews in Mecca today. Come to think of it, only Muslims are allowed there period. Why is Mecca such a closed city?
Muslims will tell you that there is no compulsion in their religion. Yet why insist on making the Haj, a pilgrimage to Mecca? They'll tell you that islam is a religion of peace and tolerant of people like Jews and Christians. Yet these people are required to pay the 'jizrah', a special tax on non-Muslims that has no fixed amount but used to be a gold dinar in one district. In one of the hadiths it talks about giving the Jews a valley to farm and only charging them half of everything, a 50% income tax! (Vol 3, book 39, number 524), as below also.
Just exactly how benevolent this is can surely be seen for the added burden it was. Who would want to pay a form of protection money to an unfriendly gang? Just how popular this tax would have been, can be gauged from the American reaction to a tax on tea imposed by their British 'protectors'.
Can you imagine if the West made religious minorities pay a special tax, what a cry about equal rights there would be? Or suppose Philadelphia or Rome was made off limits to non-Christians?
We have reciprocal agreements with countries, but we should also consider the golden rule to apply to philosophy and religion. We don't tolerate political fascism so neither should we accept religious facism.
I don't think the Koran has anything nice or admirable to say about anyone not one of them. The muslims make a big deal of being tolerant but when they conquered a place, they enslaved the men, built a mosque on the local people's most revered sites (eg they tried to build one in the Acropolis in Greece but got expelled first), and taxed the remaining wretched survivors something like 50% of everything for their supposed protection. The hadith in volume 3, book 39, number 524 talks of giving the Jews a valley to farm and of taking half of everything from them.
If , as the Koran constantly claims, allah is so merciful, then how come it's always going on about hellfire and making snide remarks about just about everyone who isn't part of the muslim set. If islam is so tolerant of other religions and peaceful, where are the Jewish communities that used to exist throughout Arabia? What about the grand old tradition of issuing 'fatwas'? We don't see Christian bishops and clerics usually calling for people to be murdered. Muslims don't seem to acknowledge that mullahs issuing death sentences on people that offend them is inconsistent with claims of islam being peaceful.
The existence of death dealing militant muslim terror groups in every area of the world shows me that there is something not really peaceful about them or their message. By their fruits, we should know them. And let's face it, until the recent pressure from America, the muslim countries of the world haven't really made efforts to extirpate these nests of vipers.
I challenge any apologist to tell me a true nation of Islam, a devout pursuer of peace that could not or would not in some future eventuality fracture into hateful angry people.
The cry of the muslim at prayer starts off by saying there is no God but allah. Some linguists have said that 'allah' can be a general word for 'everything'. On this model, millions of unwitting Muslims could be saying, "There is no God, just everything". Now who could benefit the most from such a deception? Possibly the great deceiver himself who is apparently able to 'deceive the very elect'. So much of the Bible's teaching are perverted in the Koran, that you can imagine the great deceiver laughing like Usama bin laden in that video at the misbelief of others. The greatest prophet of the Old Testament, Zechariah in sura 3:38 has him praying for bounty. Even Jesus and the disciples are portrayed as asking for non spiritual gifts. Satan must laugh his head off at how many people buy into this revised history. The real message of God's prophets and Jesus that you will suffer for believing in his name is never mentioned in the koran. Only reward for the followers of allah, either the wine in heaven or spoils nd bounty on earth. I ask that you consider carefully which prophet offers redemption, offers a spiritual truth and which prophet offers fulfillment of earthly desires.
For arguments sake, let's assume that 'allah' is a name. Yet allah is not a name we see in the bible. Mecca isn't mentioned in the bible either. Yet it says in the bible in many places, that those who call in the Lord's name will be saved. So you would expect that getting God's name right is crucial. Essential for the salvation of your soul, and to fulfill requirements that are asked of you.
God's name is given by those that don't really understand what the name is as anything from Adonai or Elohim which mean Lord. But in fact, in Psalms 83:18 it explicitly says, "whose name alone is JEHOVAH".
In Exodus 3:13-15, God tells Moses that his name is I AM and says that 'this is my name forever'.
"JAH" is also given as God's name in Psalms 68:4. Nowhere does it say the name that the Muslim world prefers to use, and there's even a controversy from the Sufis that says Allah is a concept for everything, so that what the Muslims could actually be saying is that there is no God. This is all indicative of some great deceiver that would have people say many things that are contrary to what is actually said in the bible, and a blasphemy against the true God.
The Koran has contradictions and inaccuracies about Ishmael, about the earth being created in eight or two days (41:9), stuff about yellow cows instead of the red heifer. Within it's own Koranic pages, it has differences about the number of gardens in paradise (one, 39:73 4:30 57:21 or many 18:31 22:23 35:33 78:32). It also has divergent claims about where evil comes from (Allah 4:78 or Satan 38:41), about man created from water (lots) or a blood clot (96:1-2), dust or earth (11:61), or fluid (16:4) or from nothing (19:67).
It says that none but Allah protects (2:107 29:22) yet also says the angels do it (82:10 41:31). It says Aaron was guilty of the golden calf in 7:151 but that he wasn't in 20:85-90. It says only Allah is the creator but mentions three in some surahs. It says that the verses can't be changed in 53:19-20 2:106 16:101 22:52, but then that they can in 6:34 6:115 and 10:65. Then there's the whole satanic verses controversy about Mohammed having decided some verses had been from Satan so he changed them.
When I've talked with some Muslim scholars, they told me that unlike the bible, the Koran had no ambiguities or contradictions, but clearly it does and it's very lazy of them not to have investigated their own claims. These inconsistencies could well be the work of the great deceiver that wants us to believe a contrary and different set of truths to the ones given by God.
Now there are contradictions and ambiguities in the bible, though I would say this to be expected when there are many authors or eyewitnesses. Indeed, I'd say this is an indication of veracity rather than indicative of conspiracy to get all their stories absolutely perfect. The Koran is supposedly all from one source so cannot claim this reasoning for its contradictions.
The Koran says in 4:82 that 'had it been from other than allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepency'. Well, there are discrepancies with regard to whether angels talk or whether the verses can be changed and all kinds of nit picking details, some of which I've noted above. So again, I'd say that it is hoist by it's own petard. At least the bible can claim multiple authors as a reason for some variance.
Despite the differing accounts or personal claims of Paul in the New Testament, I don't find the message of Jesus undimmed. His parables have a spiritual truth that transcends the detail of who was where. The incidentals of place were possibly written down third hand, so can reasonably be expected to vary, just like when children play that remembering game where one whispers something to another to pass on. Also, rather like the theologians debating how many angels can fit on a pinhead, such issues seem irrelevant to the real meaning of Christ's message.
Regardless of the bible or the Moslem book having some seeming contradictions, the inner spiritual truth should shine through. It's a bit like being hungry for the truth and nitpicking the minor details. Let's say you were hungry for a pizza, but instead of being happy with the contents, you niggled about the packaging. Noticing that one side of the box wasn't symmetrical with another side. Never mind the packing, the truth should be able to be got at and fully sensed.
The body of Jesus is not what is to be exalted or worshipped but the spiritual message that he brought. Although he did say that no-one comes to the father except through him. When we understand his teaching, we should not be overly concerned about how the truth of it was delivered. It is natural to be interested in the life of Jesus, but whether a parable was delivered in the morning or evening or up a mountain or at a table is incidental to the meat of the message. Similarly we shouldn't be concentrating on whether the body has a blemish or whether one finger is exactly the same as another if we taking in the meaning of what is being delivered to us.
I've debated Jesus with Muslims and they have a couple of points they bring up regularly. They say Christ was inconsistent with his message of peace by saying he himself claimed to bring a fire on earth or a sword and to set fathers against children and brother against brother. Now, I don't see this as inconsistent because he wasn't advocating his followers go out and start trouble, but he was telling what would be the natural consequences of his message. Another thing mentioned as showing Christ to be a warmonger is when he tells his disciples to sell their clothes for swords before he is captured. As he then says that two swords would be enough, it is clear that he wants them to have some defense rather than be completely without. This could be interpreted as showing that he didn't want them all to be taken and arrested along with him, and to be free to go forth and spread the gospel. He certainly didn't tell them all to be armed and attack the temple guards coming to arrest him. When Peter strikes off an ar, he tells him to stop it, as you'd expect for a man that has preached to turn the other cheek.
When Jesus tells his flock that he has come to bring a sword (Mathew 10:34), the antichrists bay that this is clearly not peaceful. However, he wasn't exhorting his followers to take up arms, but instead telling them that a sword would come against them. His message would and did provoke trouble.
Another accusation is one of racism as when he ignores a Canaanite woman asking him to do a miracle for her daughter. He uses the analogy of a dog eating the children's food, and this seems to imply that Jesus is racist. However, as Mark 7 says, he was trying to get peace and quiet for one thing, and in Mathew 15:22, he ignored her because she called him 'son of David'. Mathew 22:41 showed that he didn't think being called 'son of David' was appropriate, so much so that 'they durst not' ask him any other questions again. The analogy of dogs at a master's table is well answered by the woman and so he does as she asked. Since one of his disciples (Simon the zealot) was a Canaanite, it seems unlikely that he was discriminating on racial grounds, especially when his teachings were for all people. When he met the Samaritan woman (John 4:7) at the well, and correctly told her about her five husbands, she brought other Samaritans to listen to his teachings and this also shows he didn't have a narrow group of people to preach unto.
About the only inconsistency I can find with Christ's teaching is when he calls people fools, and in another passage tells people those that call others fools, that they are in danger of the judgment. This is a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is familiar in most parent child relationships, but not mutually exclusive.
Muslims complain that when Jesus says that he and the father are one, or that all power is given to him; yet then says God works through him or the power to decide who sits on his right hand is not his to give, is contradictory. Well I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp but not impossible. A weak analogy might be that of Siamese twins linked by the spirit but one being stronger than the other. Or consider someone that is all powerful, but is clearly unable to choose their own parents, or change that which has already been destined. Surely it is commendable of Jesus to acknowledge his limitations rather than boast of being able to do whatever is asked or to promise places in paradise at his side for everyone that asks? Yet this is what Mohammed tells his followers. Who is really being more truthful; the man that doesn't point out any possible problems or the one that says he can't guarantee it?
And when it comes to preaching the message and letting the truth set you free, this is something that is not found in the Koran. Instead it harps on about slavery. The spiritual truth shining through to the inner heart and a deep understanding of God, seems inconsistent with the muslim approach.
All these points should not be swept under the carpet. I am all in favor of open discussion rather than handed down dogma. Personally I think God expects us to disagree on the finer points and anything that moves along our understanding of him, is I believe blessed. The Sabbath is set aside especially as a day for enquiry.
The Koran dwells constantly upon the doom of unbelievers and positively gloats on their demise. I find this not divine, but if anything, an attribute of the Devil that likes to dwell on the fires of hell. Its verses are repetitive and derivative, as if some great deceiver has tried to fashion a teaching that mimics the work of the bible. The fact that EVERYTHING is different in the Koran from the bible (God's name, what the prophets said and did, accounts of Jesus) shows that they can't both be true. The Bible has history, archaeology, testimony and the dead sea scrolls on it's side amongst a wealth of evidence. The Koran is a perversion of every truth the Bible has. Ask who could possibly want everyone to believe the opposite of truth. Ask who would gloat, as Osama did on the video tape at those who didn't know the whole picture. Ask why muhamhead would tell his soldiers a wrong thing (so as not to discourage them), and why modern negotiators like Arafat flat out lie for deceptive advantage? Note how muhamhead boasts of preparing and presenting hell (18:101, 103). Ask why it says nothing of God's love in the Koran yet it does mention allah as a beguiler (4:142) and the best of all plotters (8:30). Just ask who would want to deceive even the very elect.
The Koran claims that nothing so beautiful can be created. In 10:38, you find the usual braggadocio saying the Koran couldn't be invented. Indeed, the whole tone of the book is one of braggarty triumph calling itself glorious and saying that nobody could write something comparable. This is nonsense. It is the philosophical equivalent to saying "My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. No-one can show me a woman as beautiful as this".
A real test, as in science is when you can also show what is needed to disprove something. Simply by saying you can't paint a painting as good as this, is entirely subjective. And when I have pointed out the similarity of pre-islamic verses and those in the Koran, the islamicists say it is a forgery, a work of the devil to weaken their faith. So what they are really saying is, "show me something like it, and I'll deny it". This lack of scientific rationality or testing as we understand it, is endemic in the muslim world and where progress and advanced technology have come entirely from the West.
If it wasn't for Western development, cars, tarmac, satellites and oil drilling, the Muslims would still be beating their heavily laden beasts and finding it impossible to even develop a better camel saddle.
Furthermore this test about the beauty of the Koran is capped by believers claiming that no-one has yet been able to do so. Both non-Muslims and Muslims don't even try because it would be a blasphemy, but putting together a string of lines about people being warned, then shackled and then slaughtered and adding how merciful allah can be doesn't seem difficult in the slightest.
Romans 11:18 warns, 'Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee'.
The truth that nothing can be like it is clearly disproved by the muslim's own acknowledgement of the so-called 'Satanic verses'. Tradition has it that the verses around 53:19 were changed. They acknowledge three goddesses (originally the three daughters of allah) and originally Mo' had recognized them as such to cement an alliance with the other Quarashi tribe in Mecca. The Meccans derived great revenues from people coming to worship these three female deities and would not accept that these daughters were no longer on a par with allah. So Mo' compromised to gain their allegiance. As these suras were an oral tradition, it's not clear when Mo' ordered them to be changed, but undoubtedly it was when he had consolidated his power to the extent he could dictate anything he wanted. He explained the change to his followers as the original verses as having come from Satan. Now, assumedly he couldn't tell the difference for some time which kind of shows how easy his verses were able to be duplicated. If the prophet himself is so easily fooled into what was and wasn't a divine verse, then it makes a mockery of such divine claims. Of course the more prosaic explanation is that Mo' was a cunning liar that chose whatever was expedient to him to say had been revealed.
Another apologist response to criticism of the Koran is to say that you can only understand it properly and appreciate it's beauty in Arabic.
Well if this is the case, how come God didn't choose to reveal his message in a more common language or at least one less accessible to ambiguity. Does this mean, this religion is one only for the arabs? There's no doubt that Mo' was a chauvinist and encouraged the pagan traditions of haj, etc to continue under his redirection. The apologists suggest that we all ought to learn Arabic to better appreciate it's 'beauty'.
Of course the irony is that Arabic is a phlegmatic language that makes anything sound harsh and sickly to other ears.
Unlike the inspirational verses of Isaiah or the advanced rationality of Jesus' parables, the Koran only offers rote learning. To invest so much time in memorising such lines makes it unlikely for you then to question them. The little children taught to memorize the Koran instead of multiplication tables at the madrassahs (religious schools) have no spiritual maturity that would allow them to form alternative questions. At least the little children learning the parables of Jesus are advancing their understanding of how metaphors and analogies can be used to illustrate deeper spiritual truths.
God has urged us to seek understanding above all else. In Psalms 14:2-3, this is equated with doing good. Hosea 6:6 says God desired knowledge of God more than burnt offerings, and Zephaniah, chapter 1:4-6 says he "will cut off.....those that have not sought the Lord, nor enquired for him".
Consider too, Proverbs 4:7 'Wisdom is the principal thing: therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.' Proverbs is full of such messages.
I am convinced that one of the reasons that we are urged to keep the Sabbath is so that we have a time to reflect upon God and indeed reflect upon our own morals and enquire into the mysteries that are posed for us. The Sabbath gives us no excuse for not having done so.
Like a traveler that roams the world, I have quested in foreign philosophies. Always trying to glean wisdom and insights abroad, I dismissed the Bible scriptures as too uptight. Because I found no jokes in it, no sense of humor, I suspected a lack of divinity also. But like the return of the prodigal I haven't found anything better elsewhere. Like the returned traveler, I now see the beauties and benefits of my own hometown.
The stories of Christian converts from mahommedianism show just how false is their claim of there being no compulsion in their religion. Egyptians hounded from their village or non-believing wives forced to convert are just tips of an iceberg. Yes there are hell and damnation evangelicals in Christianity but they don't threaten death for not accepting their message. About the least compulsive group I've ever seen are the Anglicans. The genteel invitation to tea with the vicar is about as far removed as possible from religious policing. The Anglicans don't even seem to insist on anything really, and are merely glad to see you show up at all.
In my maturity, the wondrously broad canvas of human nature that you find in the Bible now strikes me as marvelously insightful. Unlike the hectoring and badgering of the Koran, the Bible has all the pearls of wisdom that can help you mature spiritually. For those not yet able to transcend their daily grind and who prefer entertainment to a quest for truth, then the Bible can offer as a grand a cast of dramatic lives and events as you could in a Hollywood film. It tells stories for the reader to glean insights from, and encourages one to learn to read 'between the lines'. The parables especially are for people that have had experience of life and so are able to extrapolate the real meaning of these stories.
This life experience is what enables western minds to see the hypocrisy in the muslim one. When usury or interest on loans is disallowed by the Koran, the muslim lenders simply charge a facilitation fee. Same thing. When slavery is cited as a blot on human affairs in the new world, they conveniently forget to mention the slave routes and markets established by muslim traders particularly in Africa. Europeans didn't just jump off a ship and run off into the jungle rounding people up. They bought them. Even mohammed kept, bought and sold slaves. If a muslim kills another muslim, then he suggests freeing a believing slave as a punishment. The fact that he suggests freeing a believing slave, shows the lie to the apologists that converted slaves were set free just for conversion.
Nowhere in the Koran is there a suggestion that we are free to think for ourselves. On the contrary, it claims we are only slaves not able to question. It offers certainty and prescriptions for living for those too lazy or poor in spirit to really enquire. This is the absolute certainty that has allowed Islam to spread amongst people that want only answers instead of understanding. Like the American Taliban who had to ask whether he should pray soft or loudly. It offers the answers to those that can't be bothered enquiring of God themselves.
Prophets of old (e.g. Habakkuk) weren't afraid to ask God some insightful questions, and even Jesus seemed to need reassurance that he was doing the right thing. It isn't a sin to approach God and ask for an explanation. In fact, he seems to prefer it.
However the Koran does not anywhere encourage this personal approach. It constantly exhorts the Muslim to be a slave, a repetitive theme that has no echo in the bible. We have a God given free will to choose for ourselves. In the bible there are no references to us being God's slaves. Just look in any concordance. It actually says the opposite. In Jeremiah 2:14, it poses the question "Is Israel a home born slave?" meaning of course we aren't slaves. We are allowed and probably expected to waver, to choose wrongly and hopefully repent.
Jesus suggests that some people will work in his name but will be rebuked. Nowhere does Mohammed offer this rationality, only the naïve certainty of being rewarded in a garden full of virgins, wearing gold and silks and drinking wine from silver goblets. This is just pandering to base lusts. The Moslem paradise is all about material and sexual benefits for the men.
If wine drinking is so bad on earth, how come it is promised in paradise? Also, the women must have some other garden of paradise away from their men and their houris. Since sura 4:34 asserts that 'Men are in charge of women.....' and if 'ye fear rebellion....to scourge them', then the women are probably happy to be apart from the scourgers.
Nowhere is there an explication of the spirituality of heaven. Half the Koran is taken up with the doom of the unbelievers and their tortures and the well-watered paradise of virgins described as chaste maidens, silk robes and crystal goblets. This is a naïve childlike picture and the spiritual truths that you find in the parables or the inspired writings of Isaiah simply aren't in the book of moslems. Despite claiming subtlety, it's so straightforward that there are only pedantic points of general acceptence, unlike the sudden deeper meanings of revelation that can come from familiar biblical passages.
This is another area that makes the Christian message superior and all the more so for being harder to understand. You have to expend some effort to make sense of it and this effort is what God really wants.
The slavery that Allah wants is just religious fascism that negates the free will of mankind and denigrates those that won't submit. The Koran is full of threats and menaces with an undercurrent of hostility that is a long way from Jesus' radical message of loving your neighbor and even your enemy. The Koran claims 'slaughter is better than persecution' (2:91) and also advises not to take captives until slaughter has been done (8:67). Not surprisingly, Islam has been spread at the point of a scimitar and through military conquest rather than the spirit of God, which even managed to overcome the Roman Empire.
Almost every surah has its menaces and bullying tone, but typical would be 56:60 promising to 'mete out death among you' or 17:16 about annihilating towns that won't convert. In the 8th surah, Mohammed attacks an unarmed caravan that had sent a camel ahead to try and get help. It boasts of destroying many townships (22:45), is overly gleeful at other's destruction (25:36) and implies that Muslims can outstrip anyone in doing evil deeds (29:4).
Surah 69, around verse 46 clearly states that they would seize and kill anyone they suspected of lying which is hardly a model of religious tolerance and the Muslims also take pride in having with them heavy fetters (73:12) and food which choketh (73:13). Sounds like Satan's army on the march to me.
Surah 2 has menacing undercurrents and constant hostility against the Jews and the Christians. Hitler would have been proud. Not surprising then that some Moslem battalions fought for Hitler in WWII.
It seems odd that the Koran claims Jesus made a bird out of clay (5:110) and gave it life yet no mention of this is in the bible. It also claims his disciples demanded a table of food (5:112) and that Jesus asked for himself and his mother to be as gods (5:116). Most Christians would consider this blasphemy and lies, but in the interests of peace and tolerance, they never raise the issue. Basically the Koran gives a false and different version of everything. Could this be the 'stumbling block' that deceives even the very elect? About the only entity that I can think of that would like to lead us astray is Satan himself.
Here are some more references that illustrate the true nature of this tawdry work.
'Take not Jews and Christians for friends' (5:51)
'Jews forbidden cattle and sheep' (6:147)
'Persecution is worse than slaughter' (2:191)
'Fight disbelievers near to you. Let them find harshness in you' (9:29)
'Accursed will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter' (33:61)
Apologists for the muslim cause claim it's all taken out of context and refers only to those that start trouble. But c'mon, this is the worst kind of bullshit. Sura 9:29 clearly says, 'Fight against such as those who hath been given the scripture as believe not in allah......until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low'. This goes on for pages including 9:73, 'Strive against the disbelievers....Be harsh with them.'
And if you think that is bad, it is nothing compared to the evil cruelty found in the hadith which are reputed sayings and deeds of their prophet. A hell of a difference from the message of Jesus.
Even if you acknowledge that some of the hadiths are unsubstantiated, the fact is that most Muslims consider them to be glorifying islam and worthy. They range from the fairly innocuous to implying the children of unbelievers to be killed (Vol.8, book 77,number597) which talks of children 'were they to live'.
Even some of the fairly innocuous hadiths such as asking Muslims to dye their hair and beards is commanded as part of a general admonishment to do the opposite of everything the Jews and Christians do.
..... they speak a lie'. A similar claim is found at 19:35 and 17:111 (Allah has not taken himself a son). Since Allah is probably Satan, this is true.
Some of the astonishing cruelties done to Jews are related as everyday incidents. For example, a Jew was in chains for apparently having converted to islam and then reverting to Judaism. In vol9 book84 number 58, it relates how Mu'adh would not sit down until the jew had been killed. His host graciously obliges and then they piously discuss the evening prayers.
Another incident glorifies how Mo' sentenced two Jews to be stoned to death for illegal intercourse (???), and the witness relaying this incident says how the Jew sheltered the Jewess which has the sad ring of truth.
How anyone can claim that this diabolical catalogue is wisdom or of peaceful import is absolutely denying the words on the page. They are only showing that they have chosen to delude themselves.
Note the feverish fanaticism of militant islamics. Notice also the counterclockwise processions around the Qa'ba. This is akin to the widdershins direction of Satanists. Note also the backward contrariwise arrangement of the Koran where the earliest surahs are last and the latter ones mostly at the front.
Note also the special reverence for stones that the islamicists have. They revere the one in Jerusalem at the Dome of the Rock and especially the black stone embedded in the Qa'ba. This doesn't seem radically different from the idolatrous Arabs of before that worshipped stones.
In fact kissing the black stone at the Qa'ba was in existence before Mohammed when it was called 'Beit-Allah' known as the house of allah. Pre-islamic literature says allah was the special god of Mohammed's tribe, the Quarish but only one of 360 other deities worshipped there. Allah corresponded to the Babylonian god called Baal, and was known as the Moon god, which is why the crescent moon is such a prevalent symbol. All Mohammed was really doing was asserting his own deity over and above the other ones.
Mohammed, a leader of raiding war parties claimed revelations over a period of 23 years. The prophets of the bible had rare meetings with God that changed them. Angels conveyed messages swiftly and God never seemed to need a long time to make a revelation. So it seems most peculiar that Mohammed required years of laborious ongoing contact. His method of stopping, starting, changing (the satanic verses) and then starting again seems more indicative of headaches than divine wisdom.
The surah that mentions Mohammed's uncle by name is more a private plea than any divine revelation. And can we really say that wallowing in retribution and constant threats and wheedling for slavish followers are divine? They seem more to be from an angry Lucifer that can't control his base emotions and there are more than a few ambiguous verses in the Koran and surahs (the cloaked one, the enfolded one) that could well be indicators of the true source.
Even if we accept that Mohammed didn't just cobble it all together from other texts and his own prejudices, and that an angel dictated the Koran to him, we must acknowledge what it says in Galatians. In chapter 1, verse 7-8, it clearly warns "..but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an ANGEL from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".
The parables are rich stories to derive understanding from. Mohammed doesn't give any parables, he uses some metaphors and analogy. One that is given about a spider's house is an analogy not a parable and not an especially good one. It baldly states that if you don't have allah, then your house is flimsy like a spider's web house. It ignores the remarkable tensile strength of spiders cobwebs. If you was the same size of a spider, I doubt that you would agree to it's flimsy nature.
The parables are a remarkable teaching tool, a way to develop spiritual understanding. They are little stories about men hiding their light under a bushel or of tares in a field showing that bad grows alongside the good wheat. It circumvents the potential errors of translation because moral tales don't depend on just a few words or turn of phrase to convey their message.
If you read the parables yourself, and derive the spiritual understanding therein, then you are making the effort to seek God. This is what he wants. No church or religious institution can do this for you. Yes, they can help disseminate the message and provide a social setting that can help you understand some things, but the ultimate link that counts is you and your personal understanding of God. Many are lazy and prefer to have the message part digested for them and handed to them on a plate, but Jesus' message is for anyone that takes the trouble to read. Remember that Jesus warned that many would claim to have worked in his name but he will say, 'I did not know you'. These are likely to be the Christians that have taken someone else's interpretation of what it's all about. Personally I feel the Catholics have unnecessarily embellished the message and have unreasonably elevated Mary the mother of Jesus. Furthermore, the vows of celibacy and of silence taken by monastic orders are a misinterpretation of the message. Remember Jesus himself said that the kingdom of heaven is within us. As 2 Corinthians 5:1 says,'..we have a building of God, an house not made with hands.' Far too many churches gloss over the admonition from Mathew 6:7 to pray unseen within our closet. They hope that their sermonizers are closer to God and have a clearer interpretation of the gospel, but take it from me, no-one can do it for you. Now it does say that Jesus is amongst them when two or three gather in his name (Mathew 18:20), but consider that two or three does not necessarily mean twenty or thirty. Acts 7:49 and Isaiah 66:1-2 has God scoffing 'what house will ye build me?' so to think that the builders of churches and mosques are somehow doing God's will is actually breaking the commandment of taking God's name in vain.
Consider too, Hebrews 9:24. 'For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands....'.
Jesus taught in parables so that his teaching could be circulated in many languages without controversy as to the real meaning. A code of law or prescription for living is ever open to interpretation. But by couching the message in a story, understanding the story is possible, no matter what language delivers it.
In this way, the parables are like a Hollywood film dubbed into many languages. No matter what phrases or words are substituted, the basic story is not changeable. So the parables are translatable into any language but the deeper meaning has to be sought out by the recipient.
Mathew 13 onwards has Jesus expounding on why he talks in parables. He explains the benefits of doing so, whilst echoing the vision of Isaiah 6:8-9. In another place he suggests that we musn't cast pearls before swine, because in Mathew he clearly tells of those that will see but not perceive. If you make a sincere effort, you will be able to fully comprehend these parables, but if you can't be bothered then truly you will never understand. Like the parable of the master and his three servants, those that hath this understanding will be given more, and those that haven't increased theirs, then what little they hath will be taken away.
If you look in a bible concordance, look under words like understanding, seek and knowledge. They are numerous references like the one in Romans that equate seeking understanding or knowledge of God as the highest good. Or consider how pleased God was at Solomon asking for wisdom over long life or riches. Look in a koranic index, and you won't see this.
Jesus made prophecies that came true, such as the one about not one stone remaining on top of another at the temple. Mohammed didn't. For someone labeled as the last prophet, mohammed didn't really say any specific prophecies just bald statements. In fact, if you think about other mystics and real prophets that foretold future events, they make a mockery of the muslim claim that Mo' was the last prophet. God's ongoing revelations through Malachi of Ireland or perhaps the prophecies at Fatima, show that others since seventh century Arabia have had attested witnessed and undoubted messages.
Now mohammed's followers asked him why there were no portents or prophecies from him via God. The Koran alludes to this in several places such as 29:50, but he just shrugged it off saying he was ' a plain warner'. Deuteronomy 18:22 plainly tells what the test of a prophet should be. I suppose after Mo' wrongly predicted he was going to win a battle against the Meccans and had to flee to Medina, he decided to tread softly in the prediction business.
What are usually passed off as prophecies in the Koran are ambiguous general statements about the heavens being rolled back or camels heavy with young being abandoned. Like the quatrains of Nostradamus or indeed the visions of John in Revelation, these rather general open to interpretation statements are too broad and have been used by every generation to point to something in their own time. Now the Bible also has it's share of general prophecies (e.g.Daniel 12:4, '..many shall run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased') that are open to the when question, but it has stacks of very precise indications. Certain prophecies in the bible are very specific about temples or cities and tribes and what will befall them. The messiah is mentioned specifically as the one who is pierced or the one riding a donkey or born of a virgin or sold for thirty pieces of silver. These are very apt prophecies for the messiah. Nowhere are there predictions about a merchant of Mecca, unless you count the stuff about antichrist and the false prophet. Nowhere in the Koran is a real prophecy about a specific place or people unless you count the belief in military victory that was smashed by mohammed losing a couple of battles.
Why then do Muslims persist in calling him a great prophet? Propagandists claim that talking hips (taken to mean beepers) and talking sandals which aren't even in the Koran or hadiths are some sort of Moslem prophecy. Yet Mohammed said several times that he couldn't predict anything. In Sura 46:9, he couldn't even say what would happen to him or if he was going to heaven. The only way to God is given by Jesus in John 14:6 (...no man cometh to the father, but by me).
Some of Mo's other human failings are apparent in sura 33:36-37. This is when he told his adopted son to divorce his wife so that he could have her and add her to his bed. The lustful prophet claimed allah had condoned it viz this sura. Not to have a magic child, which is usually the excuse of latter day cult leaders but simply for his own randy pleasure.
In fact 33:36 baldly states that allah and his messenger have decided an affair, clearly a refutation of the argument that the Koran is all revelation from on high.
Sura 33:50 says that the prophet can apparently have the daughters of his uncles and aunts if he feels like it in addition to those allah has given him as the spoils of war. Incest and forced sex with female prisoners is the message here. It claims that it's alright for Mo' to do this with no reproach. Well I reproach you.
Consider the strange exhortation of Mohammed to have his followers bow towards Jerusalem. This was done early on in his career to hopefully influence the Jews to follow him. When they rebuffed him, as did many of his own relatives, he changed the order to no longer bow towards Jerusalem but instead to the Ka'ba in Mecca. This is another instance of inconsistency that hardly jibes with divine immutability.
Consider too the denials of falsehood. Sura 53:11 is the equivalent of mohammed saying he's not a crook. Saying that he isn't making things up reminds you of the angry child that stamps his foot and says he didn't do it. There's a couple of other places where this oddity of protesting his innocence seems unlikely of a true prophet. Ironically of course, he didn't really make any prophecies at all.
Islam seems but an attempt by Mohammed (and his helper) to copy that which the Christians and Jews had. To copy or mimic the strength of having one God. When others denied the truth of his assertions, he sought revenge thru naked and veiled threats against them and started lumping them together with idolaters. As he grew in military strength, so he became more vocal with his threats towards the Jews and Christians.
Surah 96:15 has a passage about grabbing someone by the forelock to stop them praying. As the Jews are the most obvious group with forelocks, this is assumedly written with them in mind.
Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most obvious Islamic country. It's a place where the religious police beat (and worse) Christians. Immigrant workers, particularly Filipinos have been killed for having bibles and trying to follow their Christian beliefs. Not surprising then, that most of the September 11th hijackers were Saudis. Their religious police attempt conversions to Islam at the point of torture. What's the matter with them that they can't coexist with Christianity? Isn't Islam strong enough to take criticism? As the calls for death (fatwas) from mullahs demonstrate, it can't abide questions or insightful enquiries. It is as the Inquisition in its intolerance, a similarly bleak outlook once practiced by the Catholic church, before a welcome reformation. The fanatical islamicist has to wheedle and threaten because he is incapable of letting any truth illuminate an issue. 'Judge not lest ye be judged' has no meaning for a fascist bully that demands obedience or else.
The halal method of slaughtering animals for food has much cruelty too. Unlike the methods in the west that has evolved stunning as a humane way to do it, Islam insists on full consciousness for an animal before cutting its throat and letting it slowly and consciously bleed to death. I once saw chickens screeching as they were denuded of their feathers by being held against a grindstone, and then being tossed into a bloody heap still alive. The concept of cruelty to animals has no meaning in Islamic countries, where overburdened animals being jabbed with sharp sticks or whipped along is not unusual.
I have also seen cruelties against defenseless animals like kittens with my own eyes, and from the internet I got this account of what gets shown on Syrian TV,
'..acts of animal torture have been publicly broadcast on television from Syria,..with President Assad of Syria smiling and applauding these horrific acts - male and particularly female Syrian soldiers biting the heads off of snakes and kittens to show what they will do to the Jews. When I saw this on only one news program, with Linda Ellerbee reporting it (completely shocked with it, herself), at around 2am, I wrote to every major news station. The replies I received were all the same: they didn't want to show it because they didn't think the American public could handle it, it was in bad taste or too violent.'
Sadly, neither do the western media like to show the Palestinians stringing up and butchering suspected collaborators in the streets either. This kind of bloodlust and public barbarity is why there are no voices of moderation in radical muslim areas. Anyone that questions a regime or the Koran is humiliated and executed.
Another thing that you no longer see openly practiced in Western society is the segregation of men and women. But the segregation of Moslems and non-muslims as in Saudi Arabia, is reminiscent of apartheid. It wouldn't be tolerated in any modern country and certainly nothing like that could be sanctioned along racial lines.
The Koran says (6:11 16:36 and many other places) to travel in the land and see the nature of the consequences for the rejecters. Hmmm, well on the one hand we have Moslem countries marked by poverty, flies and shit-strewn wildernesses. And we have the milk and honey of the West where rich Arabs go shopping and have medical operations to repair their health. Which lands do you consider most blessed? It is typical of travel in Moslem lands that you are urged to agree what a fantastic country it is with one breath and then asked if you can help the speaker get to the west in the next breath. I consider the islamicists hoist by their own petard.
If you consider the above is overly pejorative, I suggest you look around muslim districts in the West. The ones that I have seen are usually distinguished by a phenomenal amount of rubbish and litter, far in excess of the average area peopled by the native population. Lack of local environmental concern is just one more of the 'fruits' of islam that you can add to the other fruits of bombers and the fanatics. There is a tendency to ascribe a mess as the will of allah instead of asserting any personal responsibility.
The people from Muslim lands come west to indulge their depravity in the fleshpots of western cities. Now western consumerism is hardly a perfect thing, but it does allow the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people. We are all freer than a Roman emperor to travel the world and indulge ourselves with vices should we so choose. As with the parable of the Tares, the good and the bad coexist side by side. But this access to instant gratification and moral temptation is what allows most of us to mature spiritually and overcome our lusts. To reject those things of our own free will, to indulge and repent are our own rites of passage. The mullahs would have all things they consider bad, removed and banned from society. To cover up women so we can't be tempted, but all this does is really stoke the lusts and desires. So it is then that young suicide bombers can't wait to get to paradise and satiate their lusts on the 72 virgins promised to them by hypocritical clerics. The Sept 11th terrorists like others before them used money to have a few good times in strip clubs and wash down the whiskey at the first opportunity to do so.
It is in human nature that we can't create a completely perfect or lust free society. Making things forbidden only perverts the lusts into other areas. Furthermore what kind of childlike mind must a Muslim have that he can't see an unshrouded woman without being overwhelmed with lust? Like a child, they can't see something without wanting it. So what kind of immature attitude is that? And clearly the idea of covering men up in a bag so that they aren't inciting lust in the women isn't a concern. You don't abolish lust and desire just by removing the object. All that happens is that you are cloaking it, but the base instinct is still there. It is better to have temptations out in the open and trust that each can confront their inner demons as it were, and choose wisely. I forget where I saw it, but I once read that living under Islamic law is like being in a prison run by children.
Individual atrocities by the religious police going round enforcing prayers to allah are rarely known about. A rare news item about their disgusting practices made it to a newspaper on March 15th 2002 about 15 schoolgirls burned to death in a school. They could have lived but the religious police clubbed them back because they hadn't on the proper headgear. Incidents like this only confirm for me that islam is a religion that offers death more than it does life. I've long wondered at the Hajj where people are killed in stampedes around the Qa'ba and stoned to death regularly at the stoning of Satan ceremonies, albeit supposedly accidentally. Add to this, the regular explosions of cooking stoves and overcrowded buses crashing, it just seems like a festival of death.
And read this from a muslim account of the Hajj unintentionally pointing the finger: "The pilgrims circle the black stone so that any radiation or other influence from it will And unite them. People who return from the hajj look like before the journey. You can see buses department for Mecca, with the people joyful, excited and clapping their hands.
But when they return their faces are serious like a stone mask. A believing Brother who lives in Mecca wrote, "We need your prayers especially during the Hajj. We who lives in Mecca feel as if devils are walking through the streets as the time of the pilgrimage. One can almost see and feel the presence of Satan" (from a posting on the debate.org.uk site).
The constant threats, the gloating and hectoring about portents of doom in the Koran yet immediately claiming allah is merciful, but only to those who convert, is hardly a text full of grace. Typical is the verse at 48:29 that tells muslims to be 'hard against the disbelievers but compassionate amongst ourselves'. Surah 9:113 even commands muslims not to pray for non-muslims. It issn't this book that has spread a message of common humanity. It teaches slavery and submission and death.
Muslims sometimes like to pal up with Christians and say we are all people of the book, but there's enough variance between them and the New Testament to show little in common with the queer one. Despite millions of adherents, Islam has all the hallmarks of a cult. The certainty it offers rather than enlightenment, the numerous prayers from dawn to dusk and its repetitions are well known brainwashing techniques. Mathew 6:7 warns us against repetitions and says "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking".
When it suits their purposes, Muslims allow that we worship the same God and just call him by different names, but do we? When you hear muslim scholars or read their arguments as to why the bible is rubbish, it is clear that they have a different conception of God. A scholar like Ahmed Deedat is entertaining when he mocks the names in the bible or questions how someone could slay hundreds with a jawbone or a goad, but his disdain for the bible shows that he rejects the deeper spiritual message therein. On a videotaped debate I saw, Mr Deedat used rhetoric to dismiss the bible's claims and belittle his opponent whilst ignoring the wisdom of the parables or any of God's teaching through his prophets. A bit like concentrating on the eggshell to deny the goodness of the egg within. His opponent, a Christian Arab, made many points but one of the most telling was that Mohammed brought no new revelation to the world.
Now, islamicists would say Mohammed was clarifying the message. But to do that in the highly ambiguous language of Arabic that then lacked vowels seems more of a muddying. In fact, the numerous divisions and sects within islam show that there is no one clear message anyway.
What could be more of a clarification than Jesus' 'Sermon of the Mount' where he spelled out his doctrine, a kind of hillside press conference? If Jesus wasn't the clarifier that fulfilled numerous prophecies, then how much less must Mohammed have been, that had no prophecies of his coming in the Old Testament?
The message of Jesus is different enough to anyone else's that this marks him out as an especial and unique prophet. The message of Mohammed is at best a reversion, and at worst a devilish attempt to mimic a monotheistic religion. One where everything is different, and one that emphasizes a message of punishment and death rather than one of redemption and life. Would you not consider as I contend that the god of islam and the God of Jesus are different? Which God is it that wants us to seek understanding?
Islam has retarded all aspects of progress because it exhorts slavish acceptance over the spirit of enquiry and understanding. Revisionists of history like to say islam was the basis of a great civilization, but all it did was conquer already existing cultures like the Assyrians or the Nestorians, and stamp out their learning. What little of Babylonian or Chaldean mathematics and Astronomy that survived was then appropriated. The revisionists won't mention that when the Sophia mosque (originally a Byzantine church), needed repair, they had to import Armenian Christian craftsmen to fix it. The revisionists don't like to mention the slaughter and destruction of anything that doesn't jibe with the mad mullahs opinions. This is why the Moslem lands didn't come up with mobile phones or televisions or satellites or any great technology and scientific advance. Islam kills the advance of civilization. It literally beheads it.
The revisionists appropriate surviving elements of culture as if they fermented it, yet they are elements that flowered before islam put it's dead hand upon their bloom.
The Koran is also inaccurate in the scientific claims that it's propagandists claim. Although Islam is usually known as being vehemently opposed to progress in the western sense, a few scholars claim that scientific truths can be found within it. They say passages about the mountains being the anchors or tent pegs of the Earth, such as during quakes shows knowledge of geology. When actually many mountain ranges are thrust upward by earthquakes and can shake more violently than anywhere. They claim that a foetus described as resembling a type of blob after 21 days is something only Allah could have known. Yet actually, the day count is out by ten days, and the whole thing was derived from Galen's work on embryos. This Greek knowledge became dispersed along trade routes and Mohammed as a wealthy merchant could easily have gleaned such trivia from ordinary conversations. An obvious refutation of koranic claims to divine knowledge is found at surah 2:222 where instead of a natural cycle, menstruation is declared to be an illness.
Other errors and inconsistencies abound, but are conveniently ignored by Islamic scholars making their scholarship laughable. They seize upon a passage in the bible like the oft quoted one of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where it mentions a prophet and brethren as indicating Mohammed. Yet it very clearly states that the prophet will be raised up from 'in the midst of thee', not somebody from Arabia. If they really want to use the bible as an authoritative source then perhaps they'd care to interpret the passages about the false prophet spoken of in Revelation (20:7-10).
Clearly, the only major prophet since the time of Jesus is reputedly Mohammed, so when it talks of a false prophet along with the Beast and Satan (Revelation 20:10), who else could be indicated ?
Mohammed is the false prophet because he denies Christ. Surah 18:4 says 'Warn those who say Allah hath chosen a son
The new testament warns of new gospels and spirits trying to pervert the message. 2Corinthians chapter 11-12 says that even Lucifer can transform himself into an angel of light, and a spirit may try and offer up a new jesus that the disciples haven't preached. Galatians 1:8 warns that a man or even an angel may try to give a wrong message. Maybe Lucifer had a chat with mohammed?
The irony is that musselmen say that America is the great Satan, yet there is more evil in their fingers of accusation than in the target. There is more poison in the handle than in the point of their sharp accusations. One thing that life has taught me, is that sometimes the accuser can be more guilty than the accused. A thief thinks of stealing so is ever quick with branding someone else a thief. A crazy person is quick to call others mad, and so on.
The hypocrisy of Moslem nations and Muslims in general abounds. They scream for justice when Palestinians are killed yet are silent when Israeli civilians are murdered. They claim persecution by a jewish or Christian mere presence. They are quick to point accusing fingers at security forces seeking Islamic terrorists, yet never mention the occupation of Lebanon by Syrian troops. The fountains of blood of the Algerian people massacred by islamicists or the Iran Iraq war that killed millions are considered brotherly quarrels where it is unseemly to interfere. Yet any conflict involving the west or non-Muslims and they bay for blood.
This is hardly a religion of love. Passages of threats and slaughter and chains and doom for non-believers are always then ironically followed by praise for how merciful allah is. But clearly there is no mercy for non-Muslims. Do the muslim countries ever go out of their way to help others not of their faith? Of course not, they scourge and call for fatwas and burn books in mobs but could not muster a group for charity. With all the oil money, the Saudis have spent it on building mosques and repression, never on feeding the hungry or helping others save as tokens to trumpet their munificence.
This is not a religion of peace, but one of loathing for others. It is the religion of the antichrist. They won't even admit that Jesus was crucified or share his spiritual parables, yet they revel in making up stories about him that aren't in the bible. Odd then that they will admit it is Jesus and not mohammed that returns at the end of time. They have sealed up the eastern gate to the temple mount because they fear his entrance through it to throw the abominators there.
The antichrist mentioned in 1John 2:22 and 2 John 7, is very clear about who it is. It is the one that denies the son and the father, the one that denies Jesus is the Christ.
On the sermon of the mount, Jesus is also quite clear about how to pray. In Mathew 6:6-7, he says, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, pray to thy Father which is in secret...........use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do...."
Now even many Christian churches ignore the first part of this message, but the Moslem that likes to make a public show of his prayers and uses only repetitions is way off the mark of what Christ asks.
The Christian God and the one called allah by Muslims are not the same. The two religions are not just two paths to the same top of the mountain. If you accept that allah was one of many gods in the ka'baa, then contrast what happened when the ark of the covenant was in the vicinity of other false gods. According to 1Samuel 5:1-12, the other idols were found smashed or on their face towards the ark. Now, how come there aren't these kind of stories about allah amongst the other gods of the Arabic pantheon, the Qa'baa?
Now there are undoubtedly good people of both faiths that are misguided in their belief, but unless each and every one of us takes a personal leap of understanding God, why should we expect God to meet us halfway?
Allah is the god of deception. Just one of the pantheon of gods worshipped at the Qa'ba, but one that has risen high above the rest.
There are many things that link allah with Baal, the old moon god of the high places. One of the reasons muslims hate the skyscrapers of the West, is that they want the high places dedicated to Baal or allah. This is why buildings in muslim countries are usually kept low, below the level of the local mosque's minarets. There are numerous biblical references to Baal in the old testament about his high places, and the call to prayer from a minaret is an echo of this.
The Qa'ba in Mecca has a black stone embedded in the wall that the Muslims kiss. In 1 Kings 19:18, it talks about 'all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him'. Just another echo of the connective echoes between Baal and Allah. There's other links such as with the Sumerian God known as Sin, also a moon god and from where Sinai may derive it's name.
Ramadan is a festival that emphasizes the crescent moon. Consider also that the muslim year is based on the moon, and so is shorter than the calendar that the West uses, which is based on the solar year. This reverence for the 'lesser light' is an echo of Lucifer being elevated above that of God himself.
The enmity between God and Baal has a long history, and the wrong god seems to have always been God's main rival for worship. Jeremiah 23:26-27 talks about false dreams in Gods name that cause God's people to forget his name, '..as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal'.
Furthermore, there's a picture of Baal in the Schofield Reference Bible (opposite page 20 in the concordance) that is taken from a cylinder-seal in the British museum, Babylonian room, Case B. You only have to look at the distinctive cap, beard and long thin form holding his hand to the crescent moon and you will be immediately reminded of a recent terrorist leader.
More damming evidence for the message of Mohammed as being from an infernal source can be found in it's own passages. In 31:16, it says allah is subtle, yet when this attribute is given in the bible, it is given to the serpent.
Surah 86:15 says 'and I plot against them', yet surah 58:10 says 'Conspiracy is only of the devil'.
Among the curses given to the serpent, there is a curious prophecy. In Genesis 3:15, it says 'and thou shalt bruise his heel'. This could be a general statement or it could have a double meaning pertaining to the coming of the messiah. Mohammed coming on the heels of Jesus' ministry could be the bruising alluded to.
Surah 48:29 boasts of the mark muslims receive from prostrating themselves on the ground. Now is it conceivable that prostrating yourself on the ground puts a mark on the hand and forehead? I'm afraid it is. This is very reminiscent of the reputed mark of the Beast. Unlike God's chosen who will have his name sealed into their foreheads or a writer with an inkhorn that will write God's name for them, the marks of prostration are touted as something other muslims will recognize, not God. Now this can quickly lead into the prophecy that the mark of the Beast is something that only those bearing it will be allowed to buy and sell. In a way, since only muslims are allowed into places like Mecca and Medina, this prophecy is fulfilled for that region.
One of the most diabolical aspects of islam is that it denies the right of every human being to have a personal relationship with God. That apparently hasn't been possible since mohammed. Islam would have us believe that God doesn't want to talk to us or make anything known to us. The muslim is unable to have a vision or revelation or divine guidance, though they substitute that by talking of dreams they had. Just ask yourself, who it would most please for us to believe that there is no direct contact with God.
Atop most mosques are a horn like feature. Sometimes it can resemble a crescent moon, and sometimes it sits with the prongs pointing directly upwards. No matter which interpretation you put upon it, and whatever way you describe it, it has horns.
The moon has horns just like a beast, and the moon gods of old were frequently shown with beast like features. The picture of Baal that I referred to earlier, has him seated on a throne whose back legs are those of a cloven hoofed beast. There are definite echoes of Baal and the Sumerian god called Sin in allah. Kissing stones, bowing before them and crescent moons are just the most obvious. Regard 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that warns the man of sin will be revealed. This is a prophecy with a double meaning.
In case you wonder who this man of sin could possibly be, regard surah 36, rendered in English as 'Ya sin'. Some Moslems say this is an address to man but it is clearly an epithet, the title given to their most unholy prophet as is obvious by reading the first three verses.
If the muslims are so enamoured of God, then let them explain why they fear the return of the messiah? After they conquered Jerusalem, the prophecy that the messiah would return from an eastern direction led them to seal up the Golden Gate, the eastern entrance to Temple Mount.
The return of Jesus may well be as an eagle not a dove. As a lion and not a lamb. By returning as a farmer to reap the harvest, the returned messiah will also satisfy the understanding of the Jews and be recognized as the one they expected.
Perhaps the mosque is the synagogue of Satan talked about in Revelation 3:9. The passage also mentions that those that say they are of Jews will worship there. In a way, this could portend the Arabs who claim descent from Ishmael. Ishmael's descendents were more likely to have been the Jews of Arabia that were eradicated by the Muslims. Today's Arabs are Semitic but may well be mistaken about their descent from Abraham.
So where is the actual temple of God?
The Qa'ba in Mecca is the very antithesis of what God commanded in Exodus 20:25. It's rectangular walls are a house of pagan gods that existed before the false prophet.
The Old Testament and 99% of theologians would inform you that the temple of God was situated upon Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When the second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD leaving "not one stone upon another", the daily sacrifice of the Jews was ended. This is why Jews gather at the western wall of it, known as the 'wailing wall' where they lament the destruction of the temple.
There's a few things in the bible that I could say to you about abominations that desolate, but as these are sealed up until the end of time, it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to decipher them.
But consider 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 where the one "sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God". There's only one temple of God and there's only one thing that now sitteth there. It's been sitting there for over 1300 years, and was built shortly after the muslim conquest of Jerusalem. It is called the Dome of the Rock.
Zechariah in the Old Testament has several chapters about the second coming of the messiah Descriptions that seem to meet a nuclear scenario. Today's Palestinians are yesterday's Canaanites, and they are the ones currently holding and debarring the Jews from the Temple Mount. So it seems acutely prophetic that the very last verse of Zechariah (14:21) says 'in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts'.
None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand
Now you will have to prove it. References, please.
You are mixing up the Turks and the Moors.
By the time of Reformation, the Moors were already being totally routed from Spain, but the Inquisition continued in full force to erradicate the Reformation wherever it lacked civil authorities support or at leat protection.
Even pre-reformists in Central Europe were killed by the Inquisition (OK, by civil authorities because of Inquisition trials) and other branch of Romanism even if they were not connected neither to Turks nor to Moors, and very far away from the places of conflagration. One of them was assassinated by a Council even after the Emperor had guaranteed his personal safety.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Essential Guide to Bible Versions, ISBN 0-8423-3484-X
The first chapter is an introduction, discussing the various problems involved in translating any part of the Bible (or any other ancient text). The next N chapters deal specifically with Old Testament manuscripts. The N chapters after that do the same thing for New Testament manuscripts.
The important part is that those 2N chapters also introduce the names and abbreviations for the various codices.
One of the final chapters is a list of New Testament verses that have appeared or disappeard over the years, as compared to the abbreviations of the codices (which is why you need to read the whole book, not just skip to this chapter).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Debunjked Rushdie? Yeah, a fatwah is debunked. you are a crock and a terrorist zealot.
I've read the Koran three times now. The first time was as a youth searching for a divine nugget. It struck me as disappointingly uninspiring. The second time was in 1998 to look for prophecy and found only a repetitive message akin to brainwashing. The third time, I admit to being leery of it, and found it to have been written with help that is far from divine.
The translation I used of the Koran seems virulent but probably not the most so, as many are available. It is just chance that I currently have access to one translated in 1930 by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, and printed by the government of Mir Osman Ali Khan, the late nizam of Hyderabad-Deccan. I've cross referenced some of the verses in other Korans and found them sometimes slightly differing in meaning, and the verses I refer to can sometimes be off by one or more verses in different translations so any passage I refer to could be the verse above or below it, if not immediately obvious.
There are claims that the Koran is similar to Sanskrit and Tamil texts as evidenced by the Koran not conforming to Arabic grammar. Over 100 aberrations were noted by Mahmud-oz-zamakshari and he stated the Koran was not miraculous. There are parts imitative of a Syrian poet and Ali Dashti in his book "23 Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed" (published 1985) draws attention to these probable sources. Mohammed also used Al-Ukdal-Fareed, the 25 chapters called 'Jaw-hara' (the Pearl) from which to pillage verses for his surahs. This was written by Ibn Abd Rabbi'hil Andalusi who was born in 246AD and died in 327AD.
So if the Koran is based on cribbed together writings and dubious other religious texts, this really casts doubt on the divine source. Some people (yes, anti-Muslims) have suggested that Mohammed had epileptic fits, and his own mother had declared him possessed by a devil. Regardless of these claims, it seems highly suspect to find castigation of an enemy uncle and a confirmation that an adopted son should divorce his wife so that Mo' can marry her in it's suras. This seems way too convenient to just happen to fit in with Mo's mindset, for surely if God really wanted such a thing, he could have just willed it?
Consider something like sura 33:36 which states, '....when allah and his messenger have decided an affair...' and goes on to say you shouldn't question it. Well how convenient for him that god has Mo' for a partner.
There are other reasons to suspect that the claimed divine revelation is actually a satanic source, if not simply from Mo's fevered brow, but I'll get more into that later
The Muslim world has generated suicide bombers and terrorists galore. The Koran stokes these fires of hatred. There are numerous promises of paradise for the slain and booty for the alive. A typical one is sura 4:74, 'Whoso fighteth in the way of allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward'.
Sura 5:33 threatens death, crucifixion or hands and feet cut off for those that strive against allah. Christians and non-moslems beware! Anyone that isn't a follower of islam is classed as causing corruption to the earth and is therefore to be killed. The two suras just mentioned are only two of many, many such threats and intimidations. Read sura 9:5 that says to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, etc etc etc.
The Muslim apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists aren't real Muslims. This reminds me of when the Soviet Union had its communist grip on Eastern Europe. When one pointed out that it was a crap system with food shortages, queues for everything and nothing working properly, the red propagandists would claim that the real communists weren't in charge. Today we have a similar situation with Islamic propagandists saying the terrorists aren't representative, despite the bombers and hijackers claiming action for Allah.
Unfortunately, the whole tenor of the Koran is one that dwells on slaughter and the doom of unbelievers. The Hadiths are even worse and talk of violence against Jews especially. It says even the trees and bushes will say there are Jews hiding behind them, and they should then be killed.
Now the koranicists tell me that I am taking passages about annihilating towns after warning them, out of context. The threats and promised destruction of surah 17:16 towards a town is supposedly a general warning from allah. But if I don't see it that way, then why should an uneducated muslim? He could well think the verses saying 'we will destroy them and slaughter them where we find them' are general exhortations for the cause. Certainly the well educated terrorists seem to interpret it that way.
And if such passages are so ambiguous, then why would God choose to express himself in such an imprecise language. Did God really send Jesus to tell us plainly to love our enemy and turn the other cheek, yet then send mohammed to tell us to revel in their destruction?
Now the Muslims say that they only fight those that started it first, those who cause trouble or 'fasad' are apparently fair game for slaughter. The Koran says 'persecution is worse than slaughter'. Quite a difference from turning the other cheek. However, some Muslims seem persecuted by the mere presence of non-moslems. This was the reasoning behind attacks on the USS Cole, that they didn't like Americans in their waters or based on the soil of Saudi Arabia, whether invited or not. Yet these people that feel so persecuted will tell you of how merciful and big hearted Mohammed was to Jews, and how Christians cried when Muslims removed their presence from them in Syria or someplace.
This is clearly propaganda and nonsense to claim that non-Muslims felt protected by Muslims when the Koran tells them to be compassionate to Muslims but to show harshness to others. The Jews fled the Romans and settled all over Arabia, becoming a majority in Yathrib. They took Mohammed in when he needed a base, and their eventual reward was to be expelled or worse from their own city, which was then renamed Medina. If Mohammed was so kind, then how come there's no Jews in Mecca today. Come to think of it, only Muslims are allowed there period. Why is Mecca such a closed city?
Muslims will tell you that there is no compulsion in their religion. Yet why insist on making the Haj, a pilgrimage to Mecca? They'll tell you that islam is a religion of peace and tolerant of people like Jews and Christians. Yet these people are required to pay the 'jizrah', a special tax on non-Muslims that has no fixed amount but used to be a gold dinar in one district. In one of the hadiths it talks about giving the Jews a valley to farm and only charging them half of everything, a 50% income tax! (Vol 3, book 39, number 524), as below also.
Just exactly how benevolent this is can surely be seen for the added burden it was. Who would want to pay a form of protection money to an unfriendly gang? Just how popular this tax would have been, can be gauged from the American reaction to a tax on tea imposed by their British 'protectors'.
Can you imagine if the West made religious minorities pay a special tax, what a cry about equal rights there would be? Or suppose Philadelphia or Rome was made off limits to non-Christians?
We have reciprocal agreements with countries, but we should also consider the golden rule to apply to philosophy and religion. We don't tolerate political fascism so neither should we accept religious facism.
I don't think the Koran has anything nice or admirable to say about anyone not one of them. The muslims make a big deal of being tolerant but when they conquered a place, they enslaved the men, built a mosque on the local people's most revered sites (eg they tried to build one in the Acropolis in Greece but got expelled first), and taxed the remaining wretched survivors something like 50% of everything for their supposed protection. The hadith in volume 3, book 39, number 524 talks of giving the Jews a valley to farm and of taking half of everything from them.
If , as the Koran constantly claims, allah is so merciful, then how come it's always going on about hellfire and making snide remarks about just about everyone who isn't part of the muslim set. If islam is so tolerant of other religions and peaceful, where are the Jewish communities that used to exist throughout Arabia? What about the grand old tradition of issuing 'fatwas'? We don't see Christian bishops and clerics usually calling for people to be murdered. Muslims don't seem to acknowledge that mullahs issuing death sentences on people that offend them is inconsistent with claims of islam being peaceful.
The existence of death dealing militant muslim terror groups in every area of the world shows me that there is something not really peaceful about them or their message. By their fruits, we should know them. And let's face it, until the recent pressure from America, the muslim countries of the world haven't really made efforts to extirpate these nests of vipers.
I challenge any apologist to tell me a true nation of Islam, a devout pursuer of peace that could not or would not in some future eventuality fracture into hateful angry people.
The cry of the muslim at prayer starts off by saying there is no God but allah. Some linguists have said that 'allah' can be a general word for 'everything'. On this model, millions of unwitting Muslims could be saying, "There is no God, just everything". Now who could benefit the most from such a deception? Possibly the great deceiver himself who is apparently able to 'deceive the very elect'. So much of the Bible's teaching are perverted in the Koran, that you can imagine the great deceiver laughing like Usama bin laden in that video at the misbelief of others. The greatest prophet of the Old Testament, Zechariah in sura 3:38 has him praying for bounty. Even Jesus and the disciples are portrayed as asking for non spiritual gifts. Satan must laugh his head off at how many people buy into this revised history. The real message of God's prophets and Jesus that you will suffer for believing in his name is never mentioned in the koran. Only reward for the followers of allah, either the wine in heaven or spoils
For arguments sake, let's assume that 'allah' is a name. Yet allah is not a name we see in the bible. Mecca isn't mentioned in the bible either. Yet it says in the bible in many places, that those who call in the Lord's name will be saved. So you would expect that getting God's name right is crucial. Essential for the salvation of your soul, and to fulfill requirements that are asked of you.
God's name is given by those that don't really understand what the name is as anything from Adonai or Elohim which mean Lord. But in fact, in Psalms 83:18 it explicitly says, "whose name alone is JEHOVAH".
In Exodus 3:13-15, God tells Moses that his name is I AM and says that 'this is my name forever'.
"JAH" is also given as God's name in Psalms 68:4. Nowhere does it say the name that the Muslim world prefers to use, and there's even a controversy from the Sufis that says Allah is a concept for everything, so that what the Muslims could actually be saying is that there is no God. This is all indicative of some great deceiver that would have people say many things that are contrary to what is actually said in the bible, and a blasphemy against the true God.
The Koran has contradictions and inaccuracies about Ishmael, about the earth being created in eight or two days (41:9), stuff about yellow cows instead of the red heifer. Within it's own Koranic pages, it has differences about the number of gardens in paradise (one, 39:73 4:30 57:21 or many 18:31 22:23 35:33 78:32). It also has divergent claims about where evil comes from (Allah 4:78 or Satan 38:41), about man created from water (lots) or a blood clot (96:1-2), dust or earth (11:61), or fluid (16:4) or from nothing (19:67).
It says that none but Allah protects (2:107 29:22) yet also says the angels do it (82:10 41:31). It says Aaron was guilty of the golden calf in 7:151 but that he wasn't in 20:85-90. It says only Allah is the creator but mentions three in some surahs. It says that the verses can't be changed in 53:19-20 2:106 16:101 22:52, but then that they can in 6:34 6:115 and 10:65. Then there's the whole satanic verses controversy about Mohammed having decided some verses had been from Satan so he changed them.
When I've talked with some Muslim scholars, they told me that unlike the bible, the Koran had no ambiguities or contradictions, but clearly it does and it's very lazy of them not to have investigated their own claims. These inconsistencies could well be the work of the great deceiver that wants us to believe a contrary and different set of truths to the ones given by God.
Now there are contradictions and ambiguities in the bible, though I would say this to be expected when there are many authors or eyewitnesses. Indeed, I'd say this is an indication of veracity rather than indicative of conspiracy to get all their stories absolutely perfect. The Koran is supposedly all from one source so cannot claim this reasoning for its contradictions.
The Koran says in 4:82 that 'had it been from other than allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepency'. Well, there are discrepancies with regard to whether angels talk or whether the verses can be changed and all kinds of nit picking details, some of which I've noted above. So again, I'd say that it is hoist by it's own petard. At least the bible can claim multiple authors as a reason for some variance.
Despite the differing accounts or personal claims of Paul in the New Testament, I don't find the message of Jesus undimmed. His parables have a spiritual truth that transcends the detail of who was where. The incidentals of place were possibly written down third hand, so can reasonably be expected to vary, just like when children play that remembering game where one whispers something to another to pass on. Also, rather like the theologians debating how many angels can fit on a pinhead, such issues seem irrelevant to the real meaning of Christ's message.
Regardless of the bible or the Moslem book having some seeming contradictions, the inner spiritual truth should shine through. It's a bit like being hungry for the truth and nitpicking the minor details. Let's say you were hungry for a pizza, but instead of being happy with the contents, you niggled about the packaging. Noticing that one side of the box wasn't symmetrical with another side. Never mind the packing, the truth should be able to be got at and fully sensed.
The body of Jesus is not what is to be exalted or worshipped but the spiritual message that he brought. Although he did say that no-one comes to the father except through him. When we understand his teaching, we should not be overly concerned about how the truth of it was delivered. It is natural to be interested in the life of Jesus, but whether a parable was delivered in the morning or evening or up a mountain or at a table is incidental to the meat of the message. Similarly we shouldn't be concentrating on whether the body has a blemish or whether one finger is exactly the same as another if we taking in the meaning of what is being delivered to us.
I've debated Jesus with Muslims and they have a couple of points they bring up regularly. They say Christ was inconsistent with his message of peace by saying he himself claimed to bring a fire on earth or a sword and to set fathers against children and brother against brother. Now, I don't see this as inconsistent because he wasn't advocating his followers go out and start trouble, but he was telling what would be the natural consequences of his message. Another thing mentioned as showing Christ to be a warmonger is when he tells his disciples to sell their clothes for swords before he is captured. As he then says that two swords would be enough, it is clear that he wants them to have some defense rather than be completely without. This could be interpreted as showing that he didn't want them all to be taken and arrested along with him, and to be free to go forth and spread the gospel. He certainly didn't tell them all to be armed and attack the temple guards coming to arrest him. When Peter strikes off an
When Jesus tells his flock that he has come to bring a sword (Mathew 10:34), the antichrists bay that this is clearly not peaceful. However, he wasn't exhorting his followers to take up arms, but instead telling them that a sword would come against them. His message would and did provoke trouble.
Another accusation is one of racism as when he ignores a Canaanite woman asking him to do a miracle for her daughter. He uses the analogy of a dog eating the children's food, and this seems to imply that Jesus is racist. However, as Mark 7 says, he was trying to get peace and quiet for one thing, and in Mathew 15:22, he ignored her because she called him 'son of David'. Mathew 22:41 showed that he didn't think being called 'son of David' was appropriate, so much so that 'they durst not' ask him any other questions again. The analogy of dogs at a master's table is well answered by the woman and so he does as she asked. Since one of his disciples (Simon the zealot) was a Canaanite, it seems unlikely that he was discriminating on racial grounds, especially when his teachings were for all people. When he met the Samaritan woman (John 4:7) at the well, and correctly told her about her five husbands, she brought other Samaritans to listen to his teachings and this also shows he didn't have a narrow group of people
About the only inconsistency I can find with Christ's teaching is when he calls people fools, and in another passage tells people those that call others fools, that they are in danger of the judgment. This is a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is familiar in most parent child relationships, but not mutually exclusive.
Muslims complain that when Jesus says that he and the father are one, or that all power is given to him; yet then says God works through him or the power to decide who sits on his right hand is not his to give, is contradictory. Well I agree that it is a difficult concept to grasp but not impossible. A weak analogy might be that of Siamese twins linked by the spirit but one being stronger than the other. Or consider someone that is all powerful, but is clearly unable to choose their own parents, or change that which has already been destined. Surely it is commendable of Jesus to acknowledge his limitations rather than boast of being able to do whatever is asked or to promise places in paradise at his side for everyone that asks? Yet this is what Mohammed tells his followers. Who is really being more truthful; the man that doesn't point out any possible problems or the one that says he can't guarantee it?
And when it comes to preaching the message and letting the truth set you free, this is something that is not found in the Koran. Instead it harps on about slavery. The spiritual truth shining through to the inner heart and a deep understanding of God, seems inconsistent with the muslim approach.
All these points should not be swept under the carpet. I am all in favor of open discussion rather than handed down dogma. Personally I think God expects us to disagree on the finer points and anything that moves along our understanding of him, is I believe blessed. The Sabbath is set aside especially as a day for enquiry.
The Koran dwells constantly upon the doom of unbelievers and positively gloats on their demise. I find this not divine, but if anything, an attribute of the Devil that likes to dwell on the fires of hell. Its verses are repetitive and derivative, as if some great deceiver has tried to fashion a teaching that mimics the work of the bible. The fact that EVERYTHING is different in the Koran from the bible (God's name, what the prophets said and did, accounts of Jesus) shows that they can't both be true. The Bible has history, archaeology, testimony and the dead sea scrolls on it's side amongst a wealth of evidence. The Koran is a perversion of every truth the Bible has. Ask who could possibly want everyone to believe the opposite of truth. Ask who would gloat, as Osama did on the video tape at those who didn't know the whole picture. Ask why muhamhead would tell his soldiers a wrong thing (so as not to discourage them), and why modern negotiators like Arafat flat out lie for deceptive advantage? Note how muhamh
The Koran claims that nothing so beautiful can be created. In 10:38, you find the usual braggadocio saying the Koran couldn't be invented. Indeed, the whole tone of the book is one of braggarty triumph calling itself glorious and saying that nobody could write something comparable. This is nonsense. It is the philosophical equivalent to saying "My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. No-one can show me a woman as beautiful as this".
A real test, as in science is when you can also show what is needed to disprove something. Simply by saying you can't paint a painting as good as this, is entirely subjective. And when I have pointed out the similarity of pre-islamic verses and those in the Koran, the islamicists say it is a forgery, a work of the devil to weaken their faith. So what they are really saying is, "show me something like it, and I'll deny it". This lack of scientific rationality or testing as we understand it, is endemic in the muslim world and where progress and advanced technology have come entirely from the West.
If it wasn't for Western development, cars, tarmac, satellites and oil drilling, the Muslims would still be beating their heavily laden beasts and finding it impossible to even develop a better camel saddle.
Furthermore this test about the beauty of the Koran is capped by believers claiming that no-one has yet been able to do so. Both non-Muslims and Muslims don't even try because it would be a blasphemy, but putting together a string of lines about people being warned, then shackled and then slaughtered and adding how merciful allah can be doesn't seem difficult in the slightest.
Romans 11:18 warns, 'Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee'.
The truth that nothing can be like it is clearly disproved by the muslim's own acknowledgement of the so-called 'Satanic verses'. Tradition has it that the verses around 53:19 were changed. They acknowledge three goddesses (originally the three daughters of allah) and originally Mo' had recognized them as such to cement an alliance with the other Quarashi tribe in Mecca. The Meccans derived great revenues from people coming to worship these three female deities and would not accept that these daughters were no longer on a par with allah. So Mo' compromised to gain their allegiance. As these suras were an oral tradition, it's not clear when Mo' ordered them to be changed, but undoubtedly it was when he had consolidated his power to the extent he could dictate anything he wanted. He explained the change to his followers as the original verses as having come from Satan. Now, assumedly he couldn't tell the difference for some time which kind of shows how easy his verses were able to be duplicated. If the prophet
Another apologist response to criticism of the Koran is to say that you can only understand it properly and appreciate it's beauty in Arabic.
Well if this is the case, how come God didn't choose to reveal his message in a more common language or at least one less accessible to ambiguity. Does this mean, this religion is one only for the arabs? There's no doubt that Mo' was a chauvinist and encouraged the pagan traditions of haj, etc to continue under his redirection. The apologists suggest that we all ought to learn Arabic to better appreciate it's 'beauty'.
Of course the irony is that Arabic is a phlegmatic language that makes anything sound harsh and sickly to other ears.
Unlike the inspirational verses of Isaiah or the advanced rationality of Jesus' parables, the Koran only offers rote learning. To invest so much time in memorising such lines makes it unlikely for you then to question them. The little children taught to memorize the Koran instead of multiplication tables at the madrassahs (religious schools) have no spiritual maturity that would allow them to form alternative questions. At least the little children learning the parables of Jesus are advancing their understanding of how metaphors and analogies can be used to illustrate deeper spiritual truths.
God has urged us to seek understanding above all else. In Psalms 14:2-3, this is equated with doing good. Hosea 6:6 says God desired knowledge of God more than burnt offerings, and Zephaniah, chapter 1:4-6 says he "will cut off.....those that have not sought the Lord, nor enquired for him".
Consider too, Proverbs 4:7 'Wisdom is the principal thing: therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.' Proverbs is full of such messages.
I am convinced that one of the reasons that we are urged to keep the Sabbath is so that we have a time to reflect upon God and indeed reflect upon our own morals and enquire into the mysteries that are posed for us. The Sabbath gives us no excuse for not having done so.
Like a traveler that roams the world, I have quested in foreign philosophies. Always trying to glean wisdom and insights abroad, I dismissed the Bible scriptures as too uptight. Because I found no jokes in it, no sense of humor, I suspected a lack of divinity also. But like the return of the prodigal I haven't found anything better elsewhere. Like the returned traveler, I now see the beauties and benefits of my own hometown.
The stories of Christian converts from mahommedianism show just how false is their claim of there being no compulsion in their religion. Egyptians hounded from their village or non-believing wives forced to convert are just tips of an iceberg. Yes there are hell and damnation evangelicals in Christianity but they don't threaten death for not accepting their message. About the least compulsive group I've ever seen are the Anglicans. The genteel invitation to tea with the vicar is about as far removed as possible from religious policing. The Anglicans don't even seem to insist on anything really, and are merely glad to see you show up at all.
In my maturity, the wondrously broad canvas of human nature that you find in the Bible now strikes me as marvelously insightful. Unlike the hectoring and badgering of the Koran, the Bible has all the pearls of wisdom that can help you mature spiritually. For those not yet able to transcend their daily grind and who prefer entertainment to a quest for truth, then the Bible can offer as a grand a cast of dramatic lives and events as you could in a Hollywood film. It tells stories for the reader to glean insights from, and encourages one to learn to read 'between the lines'. The parables especially are for people that have had experience of life and so are able to extrapolate the real meaning of these stories.
This life experience is what enables western minds to see the hypocrisy in the muslim one. When usury or interest on loans is disallowed by the Koran, the muslim lenders simply charge a facilitation fee. Same thing. When slavery is cited as a blot on human affairs in the new world, they conveniently forget to mention the slave routes and markets established by muslim traders particularly in Africa. Europeans didn't just jump off a ship and run off into the jungle rounding people up. They bought them. Even mohammed kept, bought and sold slaves. If a muslim kills another muslim, then he suggests freeing a believing slave as a punishment. The fact that he suggests freeing a believing slave, shows the lie to the apologists that converted slaves were set free just for conversion.
Nowhere in the Koran is there a suggestion that we are free to think for ourselves. On the contrary, it claims we are only slaves not able to question. It offers certainty and prescriptions for living for those too lazy or poor in spirit to really enquire. This is the absolute certainty that has allowed Islam to spread amongst people that want only answers instead of understanding. Like the American Taliban who had to ask whether he should pray soft or loudly. It offers the answers to those that can't be bothered enquiring of God themselves.
Prophets of old (e.g. Habakkuk) weren't afraid to ask God some insightful questions, and even Jesus seemed to need reassurance that he was doing the right thing. It isn't a sin to approach God and ask for an explanation. In fact, he seems to prefer it.
However the Koran does not anywhere encourage this personal approach. It constantly exhorts the Muslim to be a slave, a repetitive theme that has no echo in the bible. We have a God given free will to choose for ourselves. In the bible there are no references to us being God's slaves. Just look in any concordance. It actually says the opposite. In Jeremiah 2:14, it poses the question "Is Israel a home born slave?" meaning of course we aren't slaves. We are allowed and probably expected to waver, to choose wrongly and hopefully repent.
Jesus suggests that some people will work in his name but will be rebuked. Nowhere does Mohammed offer this rationality, only the naïve certainty of being rewarded in a garden full of virgins, wearing gold and silks and drinking wine from silver goblets. This is just pandering to base lusts. The Moslem paradise is all about material and sexual benefits for the men.
If wine drinking is so bad on earth, how come it is promised in paradise? Also, the women must have some other garden of paradise away from their men and their houris. Since sura 4:34 asserts that 'Men are in charge of women.....' and if 'ye fear rebellion....to scourge them', then the women are probably happy to be apart from the scourgers.
Nowhere is there an explication of the spirituality of heaven. Half the Koran is taken up with the doom of the unbelievers and their tortures and the well-watered paradise of virgins described as chaste maidens, silk robes and crystal goblets. This is a naïve childlike picture and the spiritual truths that you find in the parables or the inspired writings of Isaiah simply aren't in the book of moslems. Despite claiming subtlety, it's so straightforward that there are only pedantic points of general acceptence, unlike the sudden deeper meanings of revelation that can come from familiar biblical passages.
This is another area that makes the Christian message superior and all the more so for being harder to understand. You have to expend some effort to make sense of it and this effort is what God really wants.
The slavery that Allah wants is just religious fascism that negates the free will of mankind and denigrates those that won't submit. The Koran is full of threats and menaces with an undercurrent of hostility that is a long way from Jesus' radical message of loving your neighbor and even your enemy. The Koran claims 'slaughter is better than persecution' (2:91) and also advises not to take captives until slaughter has been done (8:67). Not surprisingly, Islam has been spread at the point of a scimitar and through military conquest rather than the spirit of God, which even managed to overcome the Roman Empire.
Almost every surah has its menaces and bullying tone, but typical would be 56:60 promising to 'mete out death among you' or 17:16 about annihilating towns that won't convert. In the 8th surah, Mohammed attacks an unarmed caravan that had sent a camel ahead to try and get help. It boasts of destroying many townships (22:45), is overly gleeful at other's destruction (25:36) and implies that Muslims can outstrip anyone in doing evil deeds (29:4).
Surah 69, around verse 46 clearly states that they would seize and kill anyone they suspected of lying which is hardly a model of religious tolerance and the Muslims also take pride in having with them heavy fetters (73:12) and food which choketh (73:13). Sounds like Satan's army on the march to me.
Surah 2 has menacing undercurrents and constant hostility against the Jews and the Christians. Hitler would have been proud. Not surprising then that some Moslem battalions fought for Hitler in WWII.
It seems odd that the Koran claims Jesus made a bird out of clay (5:110) and gave it life yet no mention of this is in the bible. It also claims his disciples demanded a table of food (5:112) and that Jesus asked for himself and his mother to be as gods (5:116). Most Christians would consider this blasphemy and lies, but in the interests of peace and tolerance, they never raise the issue. Basically the Koran gives a false and different version of everything. Could this be the 'stumbling block' that deceives even the very elect? About the only entity that I can think of that would like to lead us astray is Satan himself.
Here are some more references that illustrate the true nature of this tawdry work.
'Take not Jews and Christians for friends' (5:51)
'Jews forbidden cattle and sheep' (6:147)
'Persecution is worse than slaughter' (2:191)
'Fight disbelievers near to you. Let them find harshness in you' (9:29)
'Accursed will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter' (33:61)
Apologists for the muslim cause claim it's all taken out of context and refers only to those that start trouble. But c'mon, this is the worst kind of bullshit. Sura 9:29 clearly says, 'Fight against such as those who hath been given the scripture as believe not in allah......until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low'. This goes on for pages including 9:73, 'Strive against the disbelievers....Be harsh with them.'
And if you think that is bad, it is nothing compared to the evil cruelty found in the hadith which are reputed sayings and deeds of their prophet. A hell of a difference from the message of Jesus.
Even if you acknowledge that some of the hadiths are unsubstantiated, the fact is that most Muslims consider them to be glorifying islam and worthy. They range from the fairly innocuous to implying the children of unbelievers to be killed (Vol.8, book 77,number597) which talks of children 'were they to live'.
Slander? Written "slander" is called Libel, you fucking idiot.
A death sentence for challenging your deadly Muslim ways? A fatwah? A call for the death of a citizen for slander by the head of state of a sovereign nation? And you fucking Muslim zealots think George W Bush is an evil man [to some degree this is true, same with Clintoon and other sell outs]. Fuck, Ayatollah was in a frantic race to see if he could oust Hitler and Stalin for first place in the complete fuckhead competition.
I piss on your Koran. I think your religion is SHIT. I will not kill you unless you attempt to kill me. It is easy for me to be righteous with you scum on the earth. You are the aggressors, you are evil, you will be slaughtered because you begged us to do it. I see a land of paraplegic Muslims, coated in pig shit and wounded bodies tended to by Jewish nurses, your broken bodies, dead children and battered wives all crush in defeat. We, the western civilizations, the first world, will crush you maggots if we are forced to.
The only think your trash religion teaches is excuses to beat women, chop clitoris, kill gentiles and Jews and wage war and spread your Goebbels propaganda crap by the sword.
I have no religion. I have my own peace with God. And I will be proud to meet him if I am torn down in battle fighting you animals. Another Joan of Arc will rise on day, ordained by god, to kill you scum off.
Hubal and Allah the Moon God?
... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)
Introduction to basic facts of history:
Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
This Hubal was a moon god.
One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo
The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
"al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad was born in 610 AD.
There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.
Hubal the moon god of the Kabah
Allah the moon god of the Kabah
Remnants of pagan Moon god worship in the Koran
Pre-Islamic Origin of the word Allah
Photogallery of the ancient history of Moon god worship
Modern usage of moon god symbols in Islam today.
The Bible condemns moon god worship
Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.
Islam is a lie. Islam is a religion of violence, murder and is against progress, art, music and equal rights. Islam is a deadly cult.
Just to know, Satanic verses refer to parts of the Koran that have been DELETED. EDITED. like God makes mistakes or some shit? Oh, yeah,w e got that part wrong? Right.
:100). (History Of The Arabs, Philip K. Hitti, 1937, p 96-101) ... and when he came to the words "Have you thought al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?" (VV. 19-20) Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: "These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be hoped for." When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he had spoken of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their Prophet with respect of the message which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the Sura, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise.... The polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque [that is, the Meccan Haram] likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself ... Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted at the mention of their gods." (Tabari, Annals 1.1192-1193 = Tabari vi: 108-109) This is the indubitably authentic story-it is difficult to imagine a Muslim inventing such a tale--of the notorious "Satanic verses." (The Hajj, F. E. Peters, p 3-41, 1994) ... El-'Uzza ... Manat: these goddesses were specially connected with three shrines in the neighbourhood of Mecca, namely at at-Ta'if, Nakhla (on the road to at-Ta'if, and at a place on the road to Medina. The story is that when these verses were first recited, Muhammad was anxious to win over the pagan Meccans, and failed to notice when Satan introduced two (or three) further verses permitting intercession at these shrines. This story could hardly have been invented, and gains support from sura 22, v. 52/1 (see comment). At length Muhammad realized the substitution, and received the continuing revelation as it now is in the Qur'an." (Companion to the Qur'an, W. Montgomery Watt, p 244) ... "The worship of the three goddesses, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, played a significant role in the worship at the Kabah in Mecca. The first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah." (The Islamic Invasion, Robert Morey, 1977, p 51) ... The Quraysh spread the good news throughout the city: 'Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion. He alleged in what he recited that they are the exalted gharaniq whose intercession is approved" (Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, Karen Armstrong, Chapter 6: the Satanic verses, p 108-133, 1991)
Mohammed was like Hitler! master manipilator. unlike hitler though, it is considered shameful in Germany to worship Hitler.
Mr100percent death, no one is fooled by Islam. Idiots, zealots and other assholes lick that shit up to make excuses for awful behavior.
Exactly what are the Satanic verses:
Here is how the Koran once read with the satanic verses:
Here is how it reads today in the Koran:
Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.
[Words of Satan Deleted]
What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! (an-Najm 53:19-22)
What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! (an-Najm 53:19-22)
Here two passages in the Koran that comment on Muhammad's "daughters-gate" scandal:
Like King David of the Bible admonishing himself of his own adultery in Psalms 51, Muhammad discusses the "Satanic verses"
"And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in our name something quite different; (in that case), behold! they would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us!" (Koran 17:73-75)
"Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise; That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened - Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism" (Koran 22:52-53)
What scholars say about Allah's Daughters:
Al-'Uzza, al-Lat and Manah, the three daughters of Allah, had their sanctuaries in the land which later became the cradle of Islam. In a weak moment the monotheistic Muhammad was tempted to recognize these powerful deities of Makkah and al-Madinah and make a compromise in their favour, but afterwards he retracted and the revelation is said to have received the form now found in surah 53:19-20. Later theologians explained the case according to the principle of nasikh and mansukh, abrogating and abrogated verses, by means of which God revokes and alters the announcements of His will; this results in the cancellation of a verse and the substitution of another for it (Koran 2
Allat, according to recent study of the complicated inspirational evidence, is believed to have been introduced into Arabia from Syria, and to have been the moon goddess of North Arabia. If this is the correct interpretation of her character, she corresponded to the moon deity of South Arabia, Almaqah, `Vadd, `Amm or Sin as he was called, the difference being only the oppositeness of gender. Mount Sinai (the name being an Arabic feminine form of Sin) would then have been one of the centers of the worship of this northern moon goddess. Similarly, al-`Uzza is supposed to have come from Sinai, and to have been the goddess of the planet Venus. As the moon and the evening star are associated in the heavens, so too were Allat and al-`Uzza together in religious belief, and so too are the crescent and star conjoined on the flags of Arab countries today. (The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)
Prior to the rise of Islam, these three goddesses were associated with Allah as his daughters and all were worshiped at Mecca and other places in the vicinity. (The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)
The Aus and Khazraj tribes of Medina were the most prominent worshipers of Manat, while the Quraish of Mecca paid much reverence to Allat and al-`Uzza, most of all to the latter. The Quraish were the tribe to which Muhammad belonged, and Ibn al-Kalbi states that before the prophet began to preach his own message he himself once offered a white sheep to al-`Uzza. Such was the "paganism" in which Muhammad was reared and which he later came to believe it was his mission to dispel. (The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)
The same three goddesses appear -and then disappear-in an extremely curious and much-discussed place in Sura 53 of the Quran. The exact context is unknown, but Muhammad was still at Mecca and was apparently feeling the pressures of the Quraysh resistance to his message: "When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God that would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare, it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed (Sura 53)
And what precisely are we to understand by "exalted cranes"? The Muslim authorities were uncertain about the meaning of gharaniq, as are we. 65 But what they did know was that this was the refrain that the Quraysh used to chant as they circumambulated the Ka'ba: "Al-Lat, and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other; indeed these are exalted (or lofty, 'ula) gharaniq; let us hope for their intercession." (The Hajj, F. E. Peters, p 3-41, 1994)
Even though their principal shrines lay north and east of Mecca, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat were all worshiped by the Quraysh of Mecca, and at least al-Uzza numbered no less than Muhammad himself among her worshipers. (The Hajj, F. E. Peters, p 3-41, 1994)
However, in my opinion it is unthinkable that the men of the later tradition, who regarded Mohammed in every respect as a perfect example for the faithful, would have deliberately invented a story so seriously compromising their Prophet. We must therefore assume, as the historical kernel of the tradition, that Sura 53.19ff. once embodied a different wording, implying acceptance of the pagan conception of the gods, an implication which Mohammed subsequently felt to be incompatible with belief in the one God. In style and rhythm the two Satanic lines fit admirably into the original Sura, which is amongst the earliest revelations, so that it is impossible that they should have been added as late as the Abyssinian emigration. Mohammed often made additions to the older Suras, and in such cases he always employed the formal style which dominates every revelation, so that the added lines always stand out clearly from the original. Moreover, in the original version the Sura probably contained a polemic against paganism. Mohammed objected to the expression, 'Daughters of Allah,' Which his countrymen applied to the three goddesses, and declared that it was wrong to think of God as having daughters. However, he did not intend to deny that the goddesses were high heavenly beings who could make intercession to God. Such a position is really not unthinkable in the earliest period of the Prophet's career. He merely attributed to the heavenly intercessors the same position which the angels occupied in the popular religion of the Eastern Christian churches. Undoubtedly there existed at that time an actual angel cult. (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p13-30)
And in Arabian paganism, as we shall see later, the idea of subordinate divine beings acting as mediators and intercessors is not at all unthinkable. That Mohammed actually once thought of the three goddesses as interceding angels is shown by his later addition to the aforementioned Sura 53.26-29: 'And many as are the angels in the Heavens, their intercession shall be of no avail until God hath permitted it to whomsoever He shall please, and whom He will accept. Verily it is they who believe not in the life to come, who name the angels with names of females: But herein they have no knowledge: they follow a mere conceit; and mere conceit can never take the place of acceptance of truth.' Here Mohammed implies that the goddesses are in reality angels, to whom the pagans in their ignorance have given feminine names (comp. 37, 149-50: 43.18). Albeit with strict reservations, the right of the angels to make intercession is here recognized. (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p13-30)
Thus, some interpreter of the Koran who belonged to an older generation tried to explain the tradition concerning the original wording of the 53rd Sura to a later type of piety which found it obnoxious. He found the explanation in two passages of the Koran. The first was Sura 17, 75-6: 'And, verily, they had well-nigh beguiled thee from what we revealed to thee, and caused thee to invent some other thing in our name: but in that case they would surely have taken thee as a friend; And had we not confirmed thee, thou hadst well-nigh leaned to them a little.' The context shows that these words refer to a political intrigue by means of which the Quraish had hoped to drive Mohammed out of his native city (verse 78). The other passage was Sura 22, Si, where we read, amongst other things: 'We have not sent any apostle or prophet before thee, amongst whose desires Satan hath injected not some wrong desire, but Allah shall bring to nought that which Satan hath suggested. (Mohammed: The man and his faith, Tor Andrae, 1936, Translated by Theophil Menzel, 1960, p13-30)
"As well as worshipping idols and spirits, found in animals, plants, rocks and water, the ancient Arabs believed in several major gods and goddesses whom they considered to hold supreme power over all things. The most famous of these were Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Manat and Hubal. The first three were thought to be the daughters of Allah (God) and their intercessions on behalf of their worshippers were therefore of great significance. Hubal was associated with the Semitic god Ba'l and with Adonis or Tammuz, the gods of spring, fertility, agriculture and plenty. (Fabled Cities, Princes & Jin from Arab Myths and Legends, Khairt al-Saeh, 1985, p. 28-30.)
"The Quran (22.52/I) implies that on at least one occasion 'Satan had interposed' something in the revelation Muhammad received, and this probably refers to the incident to be described. The story is that, while Muhammad was hoping for some accommodation with the great merchants, he received a revelation mentioning the goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat (53.19), 20 as now found), but continuing with other two (or three) verses sanctioning intercession to these deities. At some later date Muhammad received a further revelation abrogating the latter verses, but retaining the names of the goddesses, and saying it was unfair that God should have only daughters while human beings had sons." (The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. I, ed. P.M. Holt, 1970, p 37)
Since the Arabs used words expressing kinship to denote abstract relationships, the banat Allah may be no more than 'divine beings' or 'beings with some divine qualities. (Muhammad's Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt, Chapter 3: Religion In Pre-Islamic Arabia, p26-45)
"19 - 30/1 The pagan goddesses: 19,2o El-Lat
AI-Lat, AI-'Uzza, and Manat. Among the Qur'an's references to its 7 th-century pagan milieu are three goddesses, called daughters of Allah: AI-Lat, AI-'Uzza, and Manat; these are also known from earlier inscriptions in northern Arabia. Al-Lat ("the Goddess") may have had a role subordinate to that of El (Ilah), as "daughter" rather than consort (Britannica, Arabian Religions, p1057, 1979)
"Astral and tutelary goddess. Pre-Islamic northern and central Arabian. One of the three daughters of Allah." (Encyclopedia of Gods, Michael Jordan, Allat, p 12)
"Manat: Goddess. Pre-Islamic... One of the so-called daughters of Allah." (Encyclopedia of Gods, Michael Jordan, Manat, p 156)
Was Muhammad ready to compromise his monotheistic message to attract more converts? Was the Qu'ran even momentarily tainted by the influence of absolute evil? In context, we can see that, as Rodinson and Watt have both argued, the story does not present Muhammad as a cynical impostor. (Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, Karen Armstrong, Chapter 6: the Satanic verses, p 108-133, 1991)
The story, as it appears in the histories of Ibn Sa'd and Tabari, says that on one occasion Satan interfered with Muhammad's reception of the divine Word. While Sura 53 was being revealed, this tradition has it, Muhammad felt inspired to utter two verses which declared that the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat could be revered as intermediaries between God and man. But since the Quraysh considered the banat Allah divine beings, they wrongly believed that the Qu'ran had placed them on the same level as God Himself. Thinking that Muhammad had accepted their goddesses as having equal status to Allah, the pagan Qu'raysh bowed down to make the salat with the Muslims and the bitter dispute seemed at an end. Because the Qu'ran appeared to have endorsed the piety of their fathers and to have abandoned its monotheistic message, they no longer saw Islam as a sacrilegious threat that could bring a catastrophe on the people of Mecca. The story goes on, however, that Muhammad later received another revelation which indicated that his apparent acceptance of the cult of the banat Allah had been inspired by 'Satan'. Consequently, the two verses were expunged from the Qu'ran and replaced by others which declared that the three goddesses were figments of the Arabs' imagination and deserved no worship at all. (Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, Karen Armstrong, Chapter 6: the Satanic verses, p 108-133, 1991)
Surely any genuine prophet would be able to distinguish between a divine and a satanic inspiration? Would a man of God tamper with his revelation merely to attract more converts? Recently, however, scholars like Maxime Rodinson and W. Montgomery Watt have attempted to show that even as the story stands it does not necessarily bear such a negative interpretation. Nevertheless, the incident remained far more important in the Western than in the Islamic world; at least until 1988. (Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, Karen Armstrong, Chapter 6: the Satanic verses, p 108-133, 1991)
The other gods mentioned in the Quran are all female deities: Al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, which represented the Sun, the planet Venus, and Fortune, respectively; at Mecca they were regarded as the daughters of Allah... As Allah meant 'the god', so Al-Lat means 'the goddess'." (Islam, Alfred Guilaume, 1956 p 6-7)
"In pre-Islamic days, called the Days of Ignorance, the religious background of the Arabs was pagan, and basically animistic. Through wells, trees, stones, caves, springs, and other natural objects man could make contact with the deity... At Mekka, Allah was the chief of the gods and the special deity of the Quraish, the prophet's tribe. Allah had three daughters: Al Uzzah (Venus) most revered of all and pleased with human sacrifice; Manah, the goddess of destiny, and Al Lat, the goddess of vegetable life. " (Meet the Arab, John Van Ess, 1943, p. 29)
"Ali-ilah; the god; the supreme; the all-powerful; all-knowing; and totally unknowable; the predeterminer of everyone's life destiny; chief of the gods; the special deity of the Quraish; having three daughters: Al Uzzah (Venus), Manah (Destiny), and Alat; having the idol temple at Mecca under his name (House of Allah).; the mate of Alat, the goddess of fate. (Is Allah The Same God As The God Of The Bible?, M. J. Afshari, p 6, 8-9)
"It is certain that they regarded particular deities (mentioned in 1iii. 19-20 are al-'Uzza, Manat or Manah, al-Lat; some have interpreted vii, 179 as a reference to a perversion of Allah to Allat) as daughters of Allah (vi. 100; xvi, 59; xxxvii, 149; 1iii, 21); they also asserted that he had sons (vi. 100) (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, p. 302)
"The Quraysh tribe into which Mohammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god, and especially to Allah's three daughters who were viewed as intercessors between the people and Allah."
"This was especially true of Allah, 'the God, the Divinity', the personification of the divine world in its highest form, creator of the universe and keeper of sworn oaths. In the Hejaz three goddesses had pride of place as the 'daughters of Allah'. The first of these was Allat, mentioned by Herodotus under the name of Alilat. Her name means simply 'the goddess', and she may have stood for one aspect of Venus, the morning star, although hellenized Arabs identified her with Athene. Next came Uzza, 'the all-powerful', whom other sources identify with Venus. The third was Manat, the goddess of fate, who held the shears which cut the thread of life and who was worshipped in a shrine on the sea-shore. (Muhammad, Maxime Rodinson, p 16-17.)
"Allah, the moon god was married to the sun goddess. Together they produce the three goddess (the daughters of Allah), Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. All of these 'gods' were viewed as being the top of the pantheon of Arab deities." (The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, Anthony S. Mercatante, I. 61, 1983)
"According to this version of the story, the Quraysh were delighted with the new revelation, which in al-Kalbi's words was the traditional invocation made by the Qura'sh to the goddesses as they circumambulated the Ka'aba (Faris 17). The gharaniq were probably Numidian cranes which were thought to fly higher than any other bird. Muhammad, may have believed in the existence of the banat - al-Llah as he believed in the existence of angels and jinn, was giving the 'goddesses' a delicate compliment, without compromising his message.
Some of the pagans proposed to make Muhammad(pbuh) the absolute monarch of Arabia and offered him some of the most beautiful girls of the land in wedlock if he agreed to forsake his mission of monotheism. Muhammad, peace be upon him, replied:
"If you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand I will not give up my mission, even if you threaten to kill me, or really kill me, until the truth prevails."
He DID NOT change the Qur'an
If you've only read the translation then you haven't read the Koran. The Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God. Any translation cannot make this claim and cannot be considered the Koran. It is for this reason that reputable translations must always include the orginal arabic on facing pages. But even with these the fact remains only the arabic is the Koran.
Prove it!
Can't. HAHAHAHAHA. Prove he even said that, terrorist!
He changed it. He was a fraud, a racist and a zealot. The world has been terrorized by him. His death was celebrated, and when his foul religion is dead, he will be put into the same chambers of history as mass murderers, Nazis, serial killers.
The whole world knows Muhterrorist changed his loving friendly Muslim tune when he gained power. Then he sent opponents to death like Hitler used the gas chambers.
I also took no note that the Mufti and other Muslim leaders met with Hitler to offer help forwarding the anti Jewish agenda.
The Mufti and the Fuhrer
By Mitchell Bard
In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis' anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.
The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, "they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries."1
In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his "thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews...." Hitler replied:
Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
The Husseini family continues to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti's nephew, still regarded as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.
Notes
1"Grand Mufti Plotted To Do Away With All Jews In Mideast," Response, (Fall 1991), pp. 2-3.
2Record of the Conversation Between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, London, 1964, p. 881ff in Walter Lacquer and Barry Rubin, The Israel-Arab Reader, (NY: Facts on File, 1984), pp. 79-84.
We dedicate this book to our fellow citizens who, for love of truth, take from
their own wants by taxes and gifts, and now and then send forth one of
themselves as dedicated servant, to forward the search into the mysteries and
marvelous simplicities of this strange and beautiful Universe, Our home.
-- "Gravitation", Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...