how this information about the personality of Muhammad, though valuable can have anything to do with the current situation. Psychological portraits of great historical figures are numerous, there are even attempts to drwa such portraits of the mystical figures such as Jesus Christ, Muhammad or Moses. Still, those portraits cannot be used to explain the current religious beliefs of the people and have to be used with caution. Religions cannot be characterised by certain definitions. Chrisrtianity surely is not a religion of Love,although Love is a cornerstone of Jesus's teachings. Islam is not a religion of the Sword although sword is a part of it..

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:35:12 AM

  (0+)

Religion of the Sword Although, it is quiet accurate to claim that the major religions of the world, have been modified significantly through out the history, it is indisputable that Islam Started with the sword ruled by the sword and exists by the sword. Even the flag of the Saudi Arabia depicts a sword which resembles the sword that Muhammad carried and killed his enemies with. History books are filled with the stories associated with Muhammad's brutality and massacres of other peoples by Muhammad's followers during Islamic conquest. I have mentioned some of these events in "Sword and Seizure" and just defer you to the book.

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 10:35:10 PM

  (0+)

Religions are not only to be taken in moderation:) but they have to be evaluated ONLY in comparison. If you take the nations and their flags to prove things... Say, Union Jack surely seems benigh but in reality it is as murderous as Jolly Rodger. Islam lives by the sword? I doubt if Abu-Ibn Sina, the great islamic mathematician or Firdousi or Chaiam would agree with you. I doubt if the one who said 'An ounce of peace is better than the ton of war' would agree with you. I doubt if they would give a damn( sorry) for all your licenses. Folks, why won't we all admit the truth that if it was not for the 9/11 we even would not have such strange conversation. Also, if 9/11 perpetrators would be, say, Irish I am sure there would be researchers who would find irrationality and ' swordsmanship' complex in the history of Irish nation starting from the St. Patrick, the drunkard. Supply and demand... Take it or leave it the real understanding of the behavior of the people starts with looking in the mirror. Have we done that?

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 7:12:45 AM

  (0+)

This comment clearly shows that the author has difficulty accepting the brutality of history of Islam. It is easy to live in a free country and conjure up these illusions. Let's get a few facts right first: (1) The reference to "Abu-Ibn Sina" is inaccurate. He is known as Avicenna in Europe, He is known as Ibn Sina in the Middle East. He was born in eastern part of Iran and died in Hamedan in central Iran. I have been to his grave site. Although he has written books on philosophy; his main contribution to the world of science is his work in the area of medicine. He had nothing to do with mathematics .Although like all Iranians he was forced to the world of Islam, he drank wine and has nice poetry on it. Since the language of science at that time was Arabic most of his writings are in Arabic. (2) The name "Firdousi" is inaccurate again .His correct name is"Aboulghasem Ferdosi" he is an Iranian. He was a poet and he is a hero for us Iranians. He hated the Arab invasion and their influence on our language, he wrote a book called "Shahnameh" or the "book of the kings" .he tried very hard to clean Persian from Arabic words, and nobody with his sane mind would consider him a friend of Arabs. He was a Moslem; however you should remember that if you would not accept Islam at that time, you would endure a lot of hardship or death. (3) There is not a person in our history called Chaiam. The person you are referring to is "Omar Khayyam", he was a great mathematician and made great discoveries, his poems are delightful and he was the first atheist of Middle East that I know of. Of Course I would not ever put myself at the level of Ibn Sina, Khayyam or Ferdosi. However I would like to make a simple suggestion to the author and that is that you should learn more about these great scientists before you use them as your references. To finish this comment on a friendly note I will write my most favorite poem from Khayyam: The secrets eternal neither you know nor I and answers to the riddle neither you know nor I Behind the veil there is much talk about us, why When the veil falls, neither you remain nor I.

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Saturday, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:30:58 PM

  (0+)

Though I've not read it, I've read much about Ibn Warraq's book, Why I am Not a Muslim. It reminds me of an essay I posted here by my friend Deana Jensen, Godwho: Thoughts from a Former Mormon. As an ex-Catholic, I find the path that many of us have taken as we outgrow the jar we were raised in, leaves us with a personal history that is often similar: Guilt, fear, endless questioning, worry about what family and friends may say, concern with an afterlife, etc., etc. I think it's worse for Muslims, since death here and now is their reward, according to many other Muslims (which is why Ibn Warraq is a psuedonym). Most religions are so lost in the midsts of antiquity that there is no possible way to get to the bottom of what really went on and how the religion formed. Mormonism is the exception, since it is fairly recent, and there were newspapers and many literate people around in the mid 1800's, not to mention a young country that opposed Mormonism. What I find profoundly disturbing is that religion is so often the wall that separates "us" and "them." It is inconceivable to me that Shiites and Suunis are still killing each other off because of a fundamental disagreement about who is their leader! Yet we read about the consequences daily. Ironically, virtually all religions preach the importance of kindness and peacefulness, though rarely is that truly practiced, as far as I can tell. Sadder still, most religions limit people from thinking for themselves, learning about the natural history of how we got here--which is a "spiritual experience" in itself!--, and, all too often, limiting their education generally. Teachers are in a unique position to encourage children to open their minds and eyes and to think and ponder on their own, without directly attacking any religion. I only wish more of them would do that. Not long ago a loquacious dental assistant asked me if I believed in God, while she had my mouth open and several lethal instruments probing deep inside it. I managed to mumble some vague answer, but next time I went there, I asked her what her conception of God was. She seemed rather embarrassed when she answered, "Well, I think he's human." Then she appropriately added, "But of course it's all a matter of faith." I'll end my rambling by quoting a bumper sticker I saw a few years ago: "Militant agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!"

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:45:57 AM

  (0+)

There is a fundamental difference between my book and your article. I do believe that careful examination of the character of the prophets of recent religions can provide us with much better understanding of underling motivation or psychopathology of the prophet of that religion. However, this is hard work and requires years of research .In the case of "Sword and Seizure" more than five years research was needed to be able to make the case.

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:15:20 PM

  (0+)

I could not help but notice that all the sources you reference are dated 150 years after Mohamed died, except of course the Koran, which was compiled by Ali, 50 some years AFTER Mohamed's death. If you claim to be a scholar, you certainly must have more verifiable proof than words written on paper, of the recollections of ancient men, transcribed by a relative with a set bias. Am I wrong? Or are you really not deserving of the moniker of 'scholar' ? Make believe I'm from Missouri, Show Me. Show me one piece of DIRECT evidence, Or Shut Up With the Professor sh*t. .. .

by cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:04:19 PM

  (0+)

The writer clearly states this is an excerpt from a book. He refers to a whole book's worth of discussion. And you respond as you did? Your rude response suggests you didn't even read what was written. And you don't state just what would satisfy you. I'm not impressed with your comment at all, and considered flagging it. We don't need nasty attacks here when intelligent comments and questions are possible.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 1:26:12 PM

  (0+)

Rob; I have reread the Article and will accept your admonishment. It is not clear to me now who actually wrote the book. My original ire was raised by this list of references the Articles' author included in HIS research to Know what Mohammad's life was like. It seemed to me that he was offering these Ancient Writings as factual reference sources to validate authenticity to actions and words attributed to Mohammad. ============ The author of this article said; Therefore, if I was going to be able to know Muhammad, I had to have access to these ancient books. Some of the books that I needed were available in English: (1) The Quran, which is the holy book of Islam. (2) Sirat Rasul Allah, the most famous of biographies of Mohammad originally written by Ibn Ishaq (3) Al Sahih by Al-Bukhari (died A.D.892). A couple of these original sources of Islam were available in my native tongue of Persian: (4) Al-Tabari's 14 volumes on the history of Islam (5) Al-Moghazi, by Al Waghedy (died A.D.823). I was also fortunate to find all nine volumes of Al-Tabaghat Al-cobra by Ibn Saad (died A.D.845), written in Arabic. =========== Now correct me if I am wrong in this, but Mohammad died in 632 AD. None of his sited authors were alive 100 years after he died ILLITERATE, if they lived to 100 years old themselves. The author does not date the Holy Quran, The Othman Koran was compiled in Medina by Othman, the third caliph or Muslim leader. Before him, the sacred verses which Muslims believe God gave to Muhammad were memorized, or written on pieces of wood or camel bone. So this Articles' author, who claims to have done advanced study as a medical doctor, would be assumed to know enough to authenticate his reference material before absorbing it as a part of his knowledge base when evaluating a patients symptoms. Yet the information he sites, and passes on to others, is referenced from hearsay tales 50 years after their first telling. And He purports them to be THE WORD OF GOD!!!. AS I SAID; Make Believe I'm From Missouri, SHOW ME !! I do Apologize if my animosity for religious shills has upset the sensibilities of any of our reading citizens who also belief the printed words in un-sourced books are the WORDS OF GOD. I realize they are soldiers working for clergy who have a species to manipulate towards their LEADER'S ends and a request for facts or proof of the book they claim offers legitimacy to their edicts, may cause a ground swell of questions from those already docilely accepting the control they have over their ' flocks '. That would be ANARCHY, we should retain religion and the death it has always brought in it's wake, rather than EVER to try living in a society governed by LOGIC.

by cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 4:34:55 AM

  (0+)

It is quiet disappointing to see that at times, people who define themselves as religious use the kind of vocabulary unacceptable by the god they worship. There are many errors in your brief article. I will respond to a few of them and the rest you should just study with time. (1)The Quran was collected by Othman the Third caliph of Islam, not Ali Ibn Abutaleb. Ali was the prophet's cousin and one of the writers of the Quran helping the prophet in his work as Muhammad was illiterate. (2)There are about ten books, all written after Muhammad's death , which are considered the original sources of Islam ,and all Islamic Clergymen use them In their studies of Islamic theology. The combination of the Quran and these ten books are foundations of Islam and if you are a devout Moslem you should not refer to them in such disrespectful manner

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:57:22 PM

  (0+)

Just a little hostile, aren't we?

by Bob (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 2:00:08 PM

  (0+)

One approach to illness and adversity is to accept ANYTHING that happens to you as a gift from God that sets you off into a new direction. This would apply to epilepsy too.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 1:03:18 PM

  (0+)

Different people deal with problems of life in different ways and of course if they can turn it into a learning experience that would be of great value. However here we have a situation that one person's seizure disorder has caused significant dificulties in other people's lives

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:07:09 AM

  (0+)

Josh, The author is entitled to his opinion. The question I have is what really the goal of the study? Is it to prove that one fifth of the world population is following an evil religion? or to prove that the leader of the religion was sick? If it is the first then the conclusion is faulty because the messenger is separate from the message. If the second, then it is faulty because the analysis is without evidence other than the interpretation of a student with an agenda (receiving PhD degree). If you are looking for books about the prophet there are many studies that proves the exact opposite such as "A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" by Michael H. Hart's. One last thing I think we need all to agree on, it is very dangerous to judge other's believes.

by sameh abdelaziz (47 articles, 10 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 39 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 14, 2006 at 9:52:40 PM

  (0+)

(1) Regarding your question "The question I have is what really the goal of the study? Is it to prove that one fifth of the world population is following an evil religion? or to prove that the leader of the religion was sick?" I should mention that the purpose of this research was to answer a scientific question which has been debated for more than a thousand years. Many times in human history the results of scientific research have been contradictory to public believes, and there are many instances that the researcher was just wrong. I suggest that you read the book and see if it makes sense or not (2)Regarding my educational ambitions, I should clarify for you that the purpose of writing this book was not to put together a dissertation to get a Ph.D. I received my Ph.D in Psychology in 1984, I received my license in psychology in 1988 and I received my post doctoral certificate in Clinical Neuropsychology in 2002.I am currently an assistant professor of Psychology, in a school of medicine.

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:45:39 AM

  (0+)

I'm not talking to the world here, I'm asking YOU the person reading this now. I ask you to look back over your earliest memories. Your upbringing either included a religious bent that was instilled to give a reason to your ' WHY ' questions, or you were instilled to govern your actions because society followed those precepts and to voice or exhibit contrary views would be disdained by your peers and create a ' hard row to hoe '. Try to imagine a world that ENCOURAGED scholarly research into the authenticity of ALL religions by our best minds. A society that published those extensively documented reports to the world's citizens. Look over recorded history, and strike out all the WAR, DEATH, and SUPPRESSION of RIGHTS religious interpretation has instigated and profited from. Then imagine the state the society of MAN would live in today if we had never been blighted with religion. That's all I have to say. .. .

by cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 5:11:04 AM

  (0+)

It is true that facts are fact, but all facts are not reality. There was a time that almost all of the people living on the planet earth thought that the sun circulated around the earth. And now all of the people living on the planet earth know that earth circulates around the sun. So all facts are not necessarily true and large quantities of believers do not change an inaccurate fact to reality. There are many times in human history that all humans were just totally wrong. Same concept applies to religions today , almost all members of all religions think that they are right, while the new research using SPECT studies ,PET Scans and functional MRIs show that there is a high likelihood that human religiosity is an instinct like aggression or sexuality. The first person to discover this notion was Darwin himself 150 years ago: This Conclusion was strong in my mind About the time, as far as I can remember, when I Wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time That it has very gradually with many Fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt- Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, Be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect, which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a Belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive Fear and hatred of a snake. Charles Darwin, Autobiography,1887

by Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:23:15 AM

  (0+)

1959abdel, I agree as you say, "it is very dangerous to judge other's beliefs". As the Prophet said according to Sura 9:5, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." and Sura 5:33: "For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is . . . execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land". [See: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986 p.27] Of course in place of conversion, Jews and Gentiles were and are allowed under Sharia Law to pay the poll tax of submission to show that Islam is superior to them. The Prophet really loved and respected Jews and Christians. By the way the Sura I just quoted abrogates all previous writings and sayings of the Prophet and these two Suras (5, 9) were received just a year before he died and have never been abrogated according to Islamic scholarship. Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 2:42:43 PM

  (0+)

The War Prayer by Mark Twain It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way. Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation *God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!* Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory -- An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!" The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: "I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it. "You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen! "O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. (*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!" It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ----------------------------------------------------------- Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.

by Roy Murtishaw (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 81 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 7:41:17 AM

  (0+)

was a persecuter who, after having a religious experience on the road to Damascus ( an epileptic seizure?), claimed to have seen an angel and converted to Christianity. This led directly to a challenge to the apostle Peter, upon whom Jesus founded his Church. In fact the Church of Peter gave way to that of Paul, historically. A rather interesting parallel between Islam and Christianity in my opinion, and one that is about as irrelevent in showing the murderous intent of either religion. Both have their share of brutality, both have followers numbering over a billion and both have small minorities of extremists claiming to be following the correct and holy path. That, currently, the home of many followers of Mohammed is the scene of war and brutality may account for the brutality of those who seek to defend themselves. I will certainly not condemn a billion folks for the actions of a few thousand, will you?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 10:27:38 AM

  (0+)

yep, that's how it is. I never hear the word UGANDA, That I don't flash to Idi DaDa, baby eater. YEAH, Moslems are responsible for moslems. Same rules as last week. The world Hates Americans because of Bush. I don't blame them. He is OUR responsiblity. We allow his actions.

by cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments) on Friday, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:47:41 AM

  (0+)

Ardee, "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you." Saul, a Jew of Tarsus (Paul), Ephesians 4:32. also he wrote, "Though I speak with the tongues of men of angels and have not love,I am become as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.... "Love never fails.but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." Letter to the Corinthians 13:1, 8. As far as Peter is concerned, the only violent act recorded about him was at the arrest of Jesus when Peter drew a sword and cut off a soldier's ear. Jesus immediately reprimanded Peter for such action. Now, please get this accurately: Jesus never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Peter never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Paul never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. John never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Luke never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Jude never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Matthew nor Mark never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. These are all the writers of the New Testament. Again, "NO WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CAN YOU FIND ONE VERSE THAT TEACHES A CHRISTIAN IS ALLOWED TO KILL ANY ONE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.!" If I say the Bible is the Word of God, this is a faith statement which may or may not be true; however, when I say the New Testament does not condone violence and forbids violence when it says, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; for vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord." (Saul of Tarsus, Paul. Romans 12:9.) "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse them not." (Romans 12:14). "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men." (Romans 12:17). "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." (Fist Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians; 5:15). "If you fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," you do well." (James the brother of Jesus. James 2:8). "Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (First Letter of Peter, 2:17). "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (First Letter of John the Disciple, I John 3:18). "He that loves not knows not God; for God is love." (I John 4:8). Ardee, What the Roman Catholic Church did in the Dark Ages was against everything for which the New Testament stands. No where does the New Testament teach Inquisitions or Crusades. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has apologized for those very crusades that happened so long ago (one thousand years). Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 1:36:51 AM

  (0+)

Despite your almost didactic apologies for the despicable acts committed, over the ages, by Christians doing what they thought benefited the Church, despite your almost overwhelming refusal to give a billion Muslims the same treatment you give your own religion you are simply wrong, wrong headed, and prejudicial. It is simple, Prat, anyone who condemns a billion people is an idiot.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:13:45 AM

  (0+)

Ardee, "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you." Saul, a Jew of Tarsus (Paul), Ephesians 4:32. also he wrote, "Though I speak with the tongues of men of angels and have not love,I am become as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.... "Love never fails.but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." Letter to the Corinthians 13:1, 8. As far as Peter is concerned, the only violent act recorded about him was at the arrest of Jesus when Peter drew a sword and cut off a soldier's ear. Jesus immediately reprimanded Peter for such action. Now, please get this accurately: Jesus never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Peter never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Paul never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. John never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Luke never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Jude never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. Matthew nor Mark never condoned any violence at any time for any reason. These are all the writers of the New Testament. Again, "NO WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CAN YOU FIND ONE VERSE THAT TEACHES A CHRISTIAN IS ALLOWED TO KILL ANY ONE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.!" If I say the Bible is the Word of God, this is a faith statement which may or may not be true; however, when I say the New Testament does not condone violence and forbids violence when it says, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; for vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord." (Saul of Tarsus, Paul. Romans 12:9.) "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse them not." (Romans 12:14). "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men." (Romans 12:17). "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." (Fist Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians; 5:15). "If you fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," you do well." (James the brother of Jesus. James 2:8). "Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (First Letter of Peter, 2:17). "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (First Letter of John the Disciple, I John 3:18). "He that loves not knows not God; for God is love." (I John 4:8). Ardee, What the Roman Catholic Church did in the Dark Ages was against everything for which the New Testament stands. No where does the New Testament teach Inquisitions or Crusades. I believe the Roman Catholic Church has apologized for those very crusades that happened so long ago (one thousand years). Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 1:37:18 AM

  (0+)

I guess you have just proven beyond any doubt what myself and Ardee said all along- you cannot use the religious concepts to explain the deeds of people. of course, Jesus is not responsible for the atrocities performed ny those who claimed to follow Him and if they used his name, that was a blasphemy. But neither is Allah or Jehowah, or Buddha or any of those Scandinavian Gods. People are responsible. And in front of the people's court we all are the same: Christians, Moslems, Judaists, Atheists, Buddhists, Santerians, Wiccans, etc. All of us are the same. Let bygones be bygones and let Prophets talk to each other. We here have work to do.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 8:32:19 AM

  (0+)

Panurg, I agree except maybe for one little detail, and I am not sure whether you would agree or not; however, I would say that when the writings of Buddha contradict the followers of Buddha, you cannot blame Buddha; when the writings and foundations of Islam contradict the followers of Islam, you cannot blame Islam; when the teachings of the Tanakh and/or Torah contradict the followers of Judaism, you cannot blame Judaism; when the followers of Jesus contradict the only original rule of all faith and practice which is the New Testament, you cannot blame all Christianity. There have always been groups of Christians such as the Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, and Swiss Brethren who are pacifists; for instance in comparing Christianity with Islam, one must study the New Testament to find whether so called Christians are living according to the dictates of New Testament teaching or is that Christian group an contradiction of what Christianity really is. I hold that groups who make war, manipulate economical and political systems are not Christian in the sense of the New Testament writings. I think it is the same with Islam. When you study Koran, Hadith and Sunna from which comes Sharia Law, you must compare those teachings with what is practiced and proclaimed in Islam. Are the Islamic fundamentalist closer to those three foundations of Islam than moderate Muslims or are they bastardizing the teachings of Islam? Since I am certainly not an Islamic scholar, I cannot make that judgment. I think time will tell as the spot light is on Islam as never before. When you read the prophets of pre-exilic Israel and post exilic Israel, their cry was that Israel had forsaken the foundations of Mosaic Law: Micah 6:8, "And what doth (the Name) the Lord require of you, O man, but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." When Jesus was asked what was the very heart of the Torah, He said, "Love God with all your heart, soul, and body; and love your neighbor as yourself." His words were a direct quote from Moses. I confess I am half angry and half broken hearted because President Bush claims to be "a born again Christian." I cannot judge whether he is or not. I can judge what he is doing as President of the United States is not Christian; just as I can say that what King David did in murdering Uriah and committing adultery with Bathsheba was contradictory to the real teaching of Judaism. After a thousand years of "Dark Ages" when there was no separation of Church and State which resulted in destroying both the church and the state, I understand pretty well why the emblem of the cross is hated by Jew and Muslim alike. When so called Christian crusaders with crosses on their shields and breastplates murdered whole towns, the cross seizes to be an emblem of the love of God and becomes an emblem of evil. I would just ask that a fair judgment be given to what Christianity has done that is good. Every Ivy League school was started by a private religious school except one. The public school began because of a Christian man took children off the streets of England to teach them to read and write. The oldest hospitals in Europe and the US were started by Christian groups. The "American Red Cross" was founded over a hundred and fifty years ago by a Christian woman named Clara Barton. She went to the battlefield of the first battle of Bull Run to help the wounded Union troops. When she began tending to the Confederate troops as well as the Union, she was almost arrested and severely reprimanded. She did not stop. She followed the war battles for three long years tending to both Union and enemy alike. As you know the war was instigated by the incessant pamphleteers of New England ministers and churches preaching against the terrible evils of slavery. Do a short study of Wilberforce in India. It was this committed Christian who was responsible for stopping the Hindu practice of Suttee (burning wives alive with their dead husbands) which was outlawed in India in 1829. I would gather that Suttee would still be practiced in India if not for Christianity. I say all this to point out that a movement's real belief systems will come to the top even when it is aberrated by so-called followers. I do not mind people pointing out the evils of Christians time and again, but I would hope those same people would be fair to point out what Christianity has done that is positive. I am interested in what Mohammed said and did just as I am interested in what Paul and Peter said and did. James Mitcherner was not too far wrong when he said to the effect in Hawaii, "Tell me about an ancients people's gods and I can tell you what they were like." Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:30:08 AM

  (0+)

I would say even more ( coming from an atheist). All religions are tremendously valuable human achievements and every normal human being has to feel nothing but utmost respect towards them. But among them Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which is profoundly human. In all other religions, monotheistic or polytheistic alike God or Gods are formal. They demand obedience, rituals, following, worship. None of them demands love as a condition of faith. Only Jesus demands Love of God. Not even God the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, but Jesus, the God's son who descended, was born, lived the human life, died in suffering and resurrected demands Love as a first and foremost condition of Faith and with Love and Faith comes Hope. Those three pillars are the female names also as a final accord connecting Jesus with every human. So I say, you can imagine a plausible story about a sane octopus worshipping any religion on Earth or its equivalent except for Christianity. Christianity belongs to humans, its God had earned the Love He demands and if sometimes in the Universe there will be a discussion and each civilization will have to show its unique contribution, we, the humans will proudly present the two things: the wheel and Christianity. But being that crown achievement, Christianity can be horribly destructive in the wrong hands of imitators and paganistic quacks who try to cheat it. Christianity is amazingly tough to worship. As such it requires enormous spiritual strength. Those who do not have it create dangerous imitations. And that is what we have now in the US overwhelmingly: imitations, quackery, deliberate self deceit. Those things are tremedously destructive because as Christianity rightfully states- all distortions of it are Satanic. We see Satan in action loud and clear in the drmums of war in our country and all those abuses we witness. And as it is our Satan we better deal with him before asking others to deal with theirs. Satan is very individual. Same as Jesus. As such as an atheist and a subjective human being I praise Christianity for being what it is and consider it absolutely unseparable from humans including yours humble truly. Again, this is with utmost respect to other religions.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 at 7:36:04 PM

  (0+)

Panurg, I agree with you almost entirely. And I as I commented to you weeks ago. We are probably not as far apart as one would think. It is because of what you just said about religion or Christianity in the hands of men who manipulate Christianity to control the masses of people that Karl Marx would write, "Relion is the opiate of the people." I agree with Marx entirely in that light, and in that light Christianity becomes evil. When the Christianity unites with the State it becomes the most evil. For one thousand years, so called Christianity controlled all of Europe. Men were forbidden to have a Bible, read the Scriptures, and were forced to do a thousand violent things that States do. Jesus, Peter or Paul would never have lifted a hand in violence against anyone at any time. Violence is strictly forbidden in the New Tesament. For this reason I quoted the writings of Paul earlier. There are no writings in which Paul condoned violence.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Dec 18, 2006 at 6:35:10 PM

  (0+)

"I understand pretty well why the emblem of the cross is hated by Jew and Muslim alike." Sorry Pratliff, no. This sorry reasoning mars your attempts to make your point, and you do it constantly. I am aware of no hatred by Jews of the symbol of the cross, there are, you might understand, Catholics, Protestants and others living and proselytizing in Israel. I believe historical fact contradicts your belief that Islam hates the cross as well, and , despite eras in which persecutions occurred, there are both churches and synagogues in Islamic states. It wouod seem that your entire religious belief system revolves around hatreds, this one hates that one, that one persecutes this one. Individuals sin and coerce, religions are what they are, not inherently evil as you and others would have us believe.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Dec 17, 2006 at 8:43:03 AM

  (0+)

Ardee, You stated: "Despite your (meaning me) almost didactic apologies for the despicable acts committed, over the ages, by Christians doing what they thought benefited the Church, despite your almost overwhelming refusal to give a billion Muslims the same treatment you give your own religion." Ardee. you are simply wrong and prejudicial. Where have I made "almost didactic apologies for the despicable acts committed, over the ages, by Christians doing what they thought benefited the Church?" Would you please list them for me and where I defended them? If you cannot please apologize for that is the right thing to do. Ardee, I will list again for you since you have made an attack on my character and reputation. I listed slavery in the United States that was not spoken against by churches in the South (Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics) and I balanced that by saying the impetus of the abolition came from Christians in the Northeast (Methodist, Episcopalians, Baptist, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Quakers, Roman Catholics). I, also, listed the "Dark Ages" and "the Inquisition" which began in Spain and spread even to the New World. I, also, mentioned all three great Crusades and the despicable things they did in the name of the cross and that is the reason the sign of the cross is hated by Jew and Muslim no matter what you may believe or what you say which may two different things altogether. I, also, listed the repugnance of the churches in the South for their silence during a one hundred year apartheid, yet is balanced by the great leaders of the Civil Rights movement being Christian ministers. I can list out many of those ministers for you such as REVEREND Martin Luther King, REVEREND Jesse Jackson and so many others. I can list more if you wish. I can list the Hundred Years War. I can list evils done done by Congregationalist, by Roman Catholics, by Lutherans, and by Presbyterians. I can list them in fourteen hundred, fifteen hundred, sixteen hundred, seventeen hundred and so on. I just thought the ones I listed were generic and were sufficient to my point. They just prove that those who claimed to be followers of Jesus were not. The New Testament which is our rule of faith proves they were not followers of Jesus Christ. It is not an accusation without whole cloth. I would appreciate it if you would come off your judgmental, arrogant high horse and deal with subjects and quit throwing aspersions in place refutations. You put your "subject" as "Tried to Slip it In." What do you mean by that? I was conversing in context with Panurg, not you. What was I trying to "slip in"? Then you so arrogantly say without any proof whatsoever, "Sorry Pratliff, no. This sorry reasoning mars your attempts to make your point, and you do it constantly." And you are the judge of reasoning? Yes, Ardee, whether you like it or not, facts are facts. You wrote, "I believe historical fact contradicts your belief that Islam hates the cross as well, and, despite eras in which persecutions occurred, there are both churches and synagogues in Islamic states." It really does make any difference what you "believe," facts are facts. "ERAS IN WHICH PERSECUTIONS OCCURRED. It was incessant and what is more, it is going on right now in Muslim country after Muslim country which practices Sharia or Muslim Law. You know this or are you that ignorant? What do you think is going on with the Christians in Iran with the Iranian government? How many Christian pastors have been been found dead or mysteriously disappered since the fundamentalist take over. I know. You should. That government does dare breathe without permission of the fundamentalist clerics. I get regular reports out of Iran from pictures to videos. It is sickening what they are doing to what few Christians are left there. You write, "It wouod seem that your entire religious belief system revolves around hatreds, this one hates that one, that one persecutes this one. Individuals sin and coerce, religions are what they are, not inherently evil as you and others would have us believe." You sure do not mind pointing out the hate or evils in historical Chrisianity. Do you? I care not what you believe. I do care about the untruth you purport. Give me a break or least refute with some facts. It sounds as if you have never read one word of either the New Testament nor Koran or Hadith. Your defense of them is why I thought you were a Muslim cleric doing typical propaganda. Let me refute the above statement of yours, in fact, I asked Panurg to do this. human. It is very simple and mandatory for any factual conclusion. Ardee, compare the words of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament (The Four Gospels plus the letters of Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude and you can do this in less than thirty minutes) then compare their deeds with the deeds of Mohammed and the words of Koran and the written words of Hadith. I would appreciate Chapter and verse. I can give you chapter and verse if you wish. I just commented to Panurg and I will cut and paste the same comment to you. My comment. "I read (pronounced reed and not red, present tense, not past tense) Koran and Hadith and I find Mohammed said that Allah commanded him and his followers to murder time and again. I can go to book and verse if you wish. If the New Testament commanded at any time to do these things, I would not have such a problem with those who fight in the Name of Christ. There is not such a verse in the New Testament. When a Christian does those things, he is going against the very faith he professes. When a Muslim does those things, and I mean killing or maiming anyone for anything at any time, is that Muslim going against the very faith he professes ("or is he doing what his faith demands"-not in comment to Panurg. I do not want to be accused of "slipping some thing in")? It is demanded that we ask that question and it is demanded that we find the right answer. If I am wrong, point me to verse and chapter." Ardee, to think that all people are the same is silly. There are all kinds of people between absolute good and absolute evil, and all of them slide from one toward the other at times and never reaching either absolute. To think that all religions or cultures are the same in goodness defies logic. They can be all wrong and bad. One can be right and the rest wrong, but they cannot be all right and good. Every religion says theirs is the right way. As soon as a religion says they are the true way, then they are saying other religions are the wrong way. In one above comment to Panurg, I listed out just seven verses from the Apostle Paul on his command against violence and command to love. I think I can give you about fifty in the NT such as "Love your neighbor as yourself;" "Love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you;" "Let love be without dissimulation;" and many more. Would you please list out ten verses, just ten, in Koran which are similar to those three. Ardee, just ten, little bitty verses, ten, and no diatribes please in place of them. You can give all the diatribes you wish, but please THE TEN VERSES ON LOVE IN KORAN, first.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:21:07 PM

  (0+)

Panurg, I was comparing Koran with New Testament. I was comparing the words and deeds of Mohammed with the words and deeds of Jesus, Paul, John, Peter, James and the Gospels. I am sorry if I did not make that plain. I have no idea what Alah is like or if He is the same God of the New Testament. I know what the Allah of Mohammed is like and he is far different than the God of the New Testament or the Tanakh, at least as Mohammed portrays him. You are right in saying that those who do things in the Name of the One they follow, yet what they do is contrary to their teaching is blasphemous. I was not reared a Christian, but accepted Jesus as my Lord according to New Testament teaching when I was an adult. I thought it peculiar in Ireland that as one the Prebyterian Irish blew up a school bus filled with grade school children. I wonder if they asked Jesus to bless them as they murdered these Roman Catholic children. I thought it peculiar that Irish Roman Catholics would blow up Irish Presbyterian school children in the name of Jesus. I wondered if they, too, prayer asking Jesus to bless them as before they did this. When I read the New Testament, I say a pox on both their houses. What they did was a contradiction of the teaching of Christ. We can go to almost any book of the New Testament to prove what they did is a contradiction of New Testament teaching. Panurg, to be fair. I read Koran and Hadith and I find time after time Mohammed said that Allah commanded him and his followers to murder time and again. I can go to book and verse if you wish. If the New Testament commanded at any time to do these things, I would not have such a problem with those who fight in the Name of Christ. There is not such a verse in the New Testament. When a Christian does those things, he is going against the very faith he professes. When a Muslim does those things, and I mean killing or maiming anyone for anything at any time, is that Muslim going against the very faith he professes? It is demanded that we ask that question and it is demanded that we find the right answer. If I am wrong, point me to verse and chapter. Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Dec 18, 2006 at 9:47:40 PM

  (0+)