Subject:
|
Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:51:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
904 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Hmm, I'm not sure whether this article really disproves Islam or simply all
> religions. The author seems to be drawing on his own broad assumptions and
> bias about Islam, which I think falsely characterizes the religion itself
> and what it stands for (seems to be talking more about the people who
> practice it than the principles of the religion). Though his representation
> of Islam is very generalized and simplistic, I don't doubt you'd encounter a
> few of the arguments he mentioned.
>
> I suppose the point of "disproving" a religion is to knock down walls of
> ignorance or invalidity. But it would be hard to invalidate basic principles
> of social harmony that rest in the teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed.
> Since I don't believe in any sort of God or gods, I go straight for the
> lesson or ethic rather than debate the messenger or historical accuracy. It
> makes no difference if good, common sense advice comes from a bum on the
> street or Mother Teresa. Focus on the lesson, not the messenger.
>
> Then again, I should say the Koran actually makes a lot more sense than the
> Bible as far as documenting events. We know the Koran was written in
> Mohammed's time, while the New Testiment was written several generations
> after Jesus (perhaps 200 years as many historians have speculated). So, in
> my opinion, the events described in the Bible seem more mythical and less
> factual while the Koran represents those events in more realistic terms.
> Either way, both religions offer valuable and inspiring words of wisdom and
> lessons in tolerance and humility. Whether they are the words of God or not
> is irrelevant to me. From a philosphical and social dynamics perspective, I
> have much respect for Islam.
>
> I guess the main thing I agree with the author on is that Christianity and
> Islam are not totally parallel. Then again, I don't think Islam sets itself
> up that way and the author is a little mixed up and so were the Moslems he
> may have cited as examples. If arguments should be based on ethics,
> sensibility and evidence, not just blind acceptence, then I note that Islam
> DOES espouse that, and certainly not the opposite.
AMEN!
;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
| Hmm, I'm not sure whether this article really disproves Islam or simply all religions. The author seems to be drawing on his own broad assumptions and bias about Islam, which I think falsely characterizes the religion itself and what it stands for (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
