could do better

magicbastarder

has anyone ever sat down and done a rigorous analysis of all religions to find which religion is the best one, should you decide to find god?
you could assess them on the basis of quality of afterlife, length of standard ceremony, number of leaps of logic required to believe in their creed, average conversational skill of adherents, etc.

it's just if i find god on my deathbed, i want to be well briefed on which one i should find.

stevejazzx

magicbastarder wrote:

has anyone ever sat down and done a rigorous analysis of all religions to find which religion is the best one, should you decide to find god?
you could assess them on the basis of quality of afterlife, length of standard ceremony, number of leaps of logic required to believe in their creed, average conversational skill of adherents, etc.

it's just if i find god on my deathbed, i want to be well briefed on which one i should find.

There is only one answer to this, all reliogns are equally unbelieveable. A god is a god is a god is a god.

bonkey

The only way such a question could be taken seriously is if you believed you could pull a fast one on whichever God you decided to pay lipservice to, and that they wouldn't know the difference between true faith and lipservice-of-convenience.

Having said that, if you want to find the God you should believe in, dojn't rule out the one who will punish you most for not believing. This
might be a place to start.

magicbastarder

stevejazzx wrote:

There is only one answer to this, all reliogns are equally unbelieveable. A god is a god is a god is a god.

i didn't mean for this thread to be taken seriously.

stevejazzx

magicbastarder wrote:

i didn't mean for this thread to be taken seriously.

...if that's the case then it's got to the one with the 57 virgins....

magicbastarder

bonkey wrote:

Having said that, if you want to find the God you should believe in, dojn't rule out the one who will punish you most for not believing. This
might be a place to start.

i had enough maths in college to have to deal with in religion. i want a religion free of algebra and calculus.

Zombrex

I'm with steve on this one, 57 virgins it is ....

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

i had enough maths in college to have to deal with in religion. i want a religion free of algebra and calculus.

I want algebra and calculus free of religion

magicbastarder

Wicknight wrote:

I'm with steve on this one, 57 virgins it is ....

does the religion specify the sex of the virgins?
if not, i'd be wary.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

does the religion specify the sex of the virgins?
if not, i'd be wary.

suddenly hell doesn't seem that bad ...

magicbastarder

anyway, even if they were women, surely you're be better off with 57 women with 'experience'?

pinksoir

it would be quite depressing to find that instead of 72 virgins you received 72 white grapes (or raisins),which is actually the correct translation from aramaic, on your entry into heaven. wouldmake me think twice about becoming a martyr anyway!

rediguana

pinksoir wrote:

it would be quite depressing to find that instead of 72 virgins you received 72 white grapes (or raisins),which is actually the correct translation from aramaic, on your entry into heaven. wouldmake me think twice about becoming a martyr anyway!

It's surely virgins. What good would such a meagre ration of raisins be to any man? I might kill someone ELSE for a handful of raisins, but I would never kill myself.

stevejazzx

pinksoir wrote:

it would be quite depressing to find that instead of 72 virgins you received 72 white grapes (or raisins),which is actually the correct translation from aramaic, on your entry into heaven. wouldmake me think twice about becoming a martyr anyway!

why would they be specific in naming the exact amount of grapes or raisans? how odd.

Crucifix

magicbastarder wrote:

anyway, even if they were women, surely you're be better off with 57 women with 'experience'?

Hey, you've got eternity. They'll get experienced.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote:

anyway, even if they were women, surely you're be better off with 57 women with 'experience'?

true .. it does give an interesting glimpse into the way some religions regards sex and purity ... very few religions have the "57 whores" view of heaven

pinksoir

pretty odd. but then, thats religion for you. mistranslation is actually very common in religious texts. my personal favourite is moses dousing himself in the oil of the fragrant cane, and then witnessing god at the burning bushes. strangely enough the correct translation of 'fragrant cane' is flowering cannabis', and it was actually a very common practice at that time to use cannabis oil in conjunction with other oils for sacred rituals and rites. i remember when i studied anthropology in university coming across the same practices in other tribes around the same time and region. for example, the scythians.

sort of takes alot away from religion. if someone who was high these days claimed to see and speak with god we'd attribute it to the drugs. good times.

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

it would be quite depressing to find that instead of 72 virgins you received 72 white grapes (or raisins),which is actually the correct translation from aramaic, on your entry into heaven. wouldmake me think twice about becoming a martyr anyway!

It's probably better to translate from the Arabic, though, in the case of the Qu'ran and Hadiths....

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

actually the original language of the qu'ran was a language close to aramaic, mixed with arabic. earlier passages were aramaic and the later ones arabic. i am pretty certain of this, but i'm certainly not an expert in the field...

pinksoir

screwed up the posting there...

of course there is dispute over this, as is the case for the majority of ancient texts

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

actually the original language of the qu'ran was a language close to aramaic, mixed with arabic. earlier passages were aramaic and the later ones arabic. i am pretty certain of this, but i'm certainly not an expert in the field...

I'm not either, but I'm not aware of any such claim. The original language of the Qu'ran is, as far as I know, Arabic. The Bible was originally largely in Aramaic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Misinterpreted-Mistranslated-Misread-Language/dp/0977860698
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3209
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm

the first two are links associated with one particular book, the second shows how arabic evolved from (or is rooted in) aramaic, they share the same alphabet etc etc.

of course the qu'ran also includes much of the bible.

Beruthiel

stevejazzx wrote:

...if that's the case then it's got to the one with the 57 virgins....

I'm going with the virgins, I only like grapes if they are turned into wine.
I am of course presuming that these virgins will be male if you happen to be female?

magicbastarder

that 57 thing only came about when heinz offered to sponsor it.

Scofflaw

pinksoir wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Misinterpreted-Mistranslated-Misread-Language/dp/0977860698
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3209
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm

the first two are links associated with one particular book, the second shows how arabic evolved from (or is rooted in) aramaic, they share the same alphabet etc etc.

Er, yes. And our alphabet evolved out of the Phoenician by way of the Greeks, but this language I am writing in is English, not either of the above.

pinksoir wrote:

of course the qu'ran also includes much of the bible.

Er, no. No it doesn't. Not at all, in fact. Muslims accept bits of the Bible, and some Biblical figures are mentioned in the Quran, but none of the Bible is in the Quran.

But don't take my word for it - put forward these statements on the Islam board. I shall watch with interest, and from something of a distance...

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

pinksoir wrote:

of course the qu'ran also includes much of the bible.

emmm....I think you might want to look into this

edit:scofflaw already on the case

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Muslims accept bits of the Bible, and some Biblical figures are mentioned in the Quran, but none of the Bible is in the Quran.

Tbh I was a bit puzzled at this statment because, having read a chunk of it, I actually pretty much would have described it as a sort of take on the Bible. Wikipedia gives the usual quick and dirty material on the topic.

What have you in mind when you say none of the Bible is in the Quran?

pinksoir

i clearly don't mean that the qu'ran includes much of the bible verbatim. furthermore, the period of time between aramaic and arabic was a lot less than phoenician and english. a better example would be latin evolving into italian or some other romance language.

whatever, i don't care enough about this to pursue it any further. i know what i know and can't be arsed trying to convince anyone.

stevejazzx

pinksoir wrote:

i clearly don't mean that the qu'ran includes much of the bible verbatim. furthermore, the period of time between aramaic and arabic was a lot less than phoenician and english. a better example would be latin evolving into italian or some other romance language.

whatever, i don't care enough about this to pursue it any further. i know what i know and can't be arsed trying to convince anyone.

I knew what you meant but it was just the use of the word 'include' as in the 'qu'ran includes much of the bible' which I think caused most of the misunderstanding here.

magicbastarder

argh.
this thread was meant to be funny. enough with the 'my brain is bigger than your brain' stuff.

pinksoir

our brains are the same size i'd say!

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

I knew what you meant but it was just the use of the word 'include' as in the 'qu'ran includes much of the bible' which I think caused most of the misunderstanding here.

Yup. If he/she had said "paraphrases" or "mentions" I'd not have quibbled, because it does (lots of the same people, similar events - hence 'Abrahamic religions' to describe Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). The implication of "includes", though, is that, say, the Book of Job is part of the Qu'ran, which isn't the case.

Apologies to pinksoir, it's just that there are people who would believe exactly that, and use it to "show" that Islam derived from Christianity (Jack Chick springs to mind, but I'd bet a couple of our Christianist posters would go for it too).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

magicbastarder wrote:

argh.
this thread was meant to be funny. enough with the 'my brain is bigger than your brain' stuff.

Apologies, I’m sure we’re compensating.

scofflaw wrote:

Yup. If he/she had said "paraphrases" or "mentions" I'd not have quibbled, because it does (lots of the same people, similar events - hence 'Abrahamic religions' to describe Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). The implication of "includes", though, is that, say, the Book of Job is part of the Qu'ran, which isn't the case.

I see now what you are saying, and you are right that this is a necessary distinction.

scofflaw wrote:

Apologies to pinksoir, it's just that there are people who would believe exactly that, and use it to "show" that Islam derived from Christianity (Jack Chick springs to mind, but I'd bet a couple of our Christianist posters would go for it too).

I’m puzzled again. Presumably Islam does come, ultimately, from a common source with Christianity in the same way as both of them must ultimately come from a common source with Judaism. For the sake of argument, I thought that some (relatively reasonable) people drew links between Mohammed’s picture of Jesus and the views of a Christian sect called Nestorians that would have been around and visible at the time Islam was founded. I’m not claiming any especially deep knowledge of the subject, but I’ve come across this being identified as an influence in at least one history I got out of the library which had the look and feel of an objective account, not some born-again Christian tract.

Do I take it that your point is that a view that Islam is essentially a heresy against the one true faith cannot be sustained, but indeed all three of these religions are essentially packaging a similar bundle of myths at least some of which predate all of them?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Do I take it that your point is that a view that Islam is essentially a heresy against the one true faith cannot be sustained, but indeed all three of these religions are essentially packaging a similar bundle of myths at least some of which predate all of them?

Well, that would be putting it rather more elegantly than I would have done, but yes. All three religions appear to be rooted in a common substratum of Middle Eastern culture, so there are strong similarities between the stories they are telling, many of which would, indeed, almost certainly derive from older myths.

On the other hand, the view that Islam was a Christian 'heresy' was very common in Medieval Christendom, and appears tenacious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

magicbastarder

why are you guys so bloody SERIOUS?

Zillah

why are you so bloody FRIVOLOUS?

magicbastarder

cos god tells me to be.

Zillah

Which one?

Thor told me to stomp your ass, filthy troll. But I chose to ignore him. Now thats altruism. To defy a God for another's sake. You should feel honoured.

Scofflaw

This is frivolous. It's just intellectually frivolous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

magicbastarder -

You must know at this stage that if someone here makes a statement - any statement - a spirited argument ensues.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

if someone here makes a statement - any statement - a spirited argument ensues.

I'm not convinced that this is always the case.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not convinced that this is always the case.

You're wrong...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

If a spirited argument ensues from every statement we have seen, is that sufficient proof that all statements that have ever been and all statements to come will have the same characteristic?

hairyheretic

Zillah wrote:

Which one?

Thor told me to stomp your ass, filthy troll. But I chose to ignore him. Now thats altruism. To defy a God for another's sake. You should feel honoured.

Thor tells you to do what you think is right, and deal with the consequences your actions bring.

The Aesir do not want slaves to their whims.

magicbastarder

are there (m)any religions where the followers are the gods of their own religion?

hairyheretic

I think some varieties of satanism hold a thought something along those lines, but I couldn't swear to it.

Zillah

hairyheretic wrote:

I think some varieties of satanism hold a thought something along those lines, but I couldn't swear to it.

Most forms of Satanism are complete pisstakes. Ironically, a lot of their adherents do not realise this.

"Do unto others as they do unto you."
I love that line.

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

a view that Islam is essentially a heresy against the one true faith cannot be sustained, but indeed all three of these religions are essentially packaging a similar bundle of myths at least some of which predate all of them

Just resurrecting that thought because I came across an article here that, I think, is a reasonable attempt at summarising bone fide scholarship on the origins of Islam. I think it is of interest to see the situation is not unlike what happens when Christian myths are subjected to some attempt at objective scrutiny.