Talk:Jesus Christ

Anyone wanna take a crack at schoolin' this up a bit?--PalMD^-Talk 06:26, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I remember that I had a sociology professor some time ago who said he'd been to Bethlehem, and was surprised to find that virgin births were not uncommon. According to the locals, virgin births happened all the time, and it took him a little bit to realize that the term they used for "virgin" meant "virtuous", not "never had sex". I don't know if this is apocryphal or not, but it's worth looking into. --Kels 07:07, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

There's actually a lot of translation stuff out there regarding this whole issue. If we could find the user NousEphry or however he spelled it, he could help with that.--PalMD^-Talk 07:26, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Just found his cp page (User:NousEpirrhytos). He has no email specified and he's infinitely blocked. Airdish 07:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

My Greek will be a poor substitute, but the earliest koine text that I can get my hands on is the Stephanus New Testament 1550. It gives us the following -

Matthew 1:18-23 - Mary is pledged to be married to Joseph. It doesn't mean that she was a virgin then, but the fact that Joseph needed to know why she was pregnant would suggest that it wasn't his child.

Matthew 1:23 gives us a rendition of Isaiah 7:14, which mentions 'η παρθενος', Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon gives that as 'maid, maiden, virgin or girl'. It mentions how the circumstances of Jesus' birth fulfil that prophecy.

That passage in Hebrew has 'הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָ', which translates into English as 'the virgin conceives'. Not too helpful, as a virgin conception isn't the same as a virgin birth.

Luke 1:27 gives παρθενον again; no help there, but Luke 1:34 has:

'ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω;'

Which translates literally as 'Mary said to the messenger 'How will this be, when I do not know a man?'

Which suggests to me that Luke intended 'virgin' in our modern sense. --Wikinterpreter^woo!

I don't have an opinion about the Hebrew text, but I agree with your interpretation of the Greek. Another thing is context. The whole passage would make very sense if it didn't refer to virginity in the technical sense. Why would Joseph consider divorce in that case? And conversely, would he have agreed to marry her if she hadn't been a virgin? And, basically, what would all the fuss about her conception be about if she wasn't? --AKjeldsen 19:15, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Snipped this from here...no idea of the validity of the research.--PalMD^-Talk 17:32, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

The Hebrew word "almah," which appears in Isaiah 7:14 is thought by modern lexicographers to be derived not from "alam" (Strong's #5957)but from the Hebrew root aleph*lamed*mem which means, "to be ripe" and thus, by extension, implies one who is of marriageable age. In Classical Greek the word parthenos simply meant "a young woman" or "girl" and had no specific meaning of virginity. It later acquired the meaning of "virgin" as we define it in English. Thus, the meaning of the word adequately translates "almah." But almah and parthenos aregeneral words, which leave a possible meaning of "virgin" possible. So why didn't Isaiah use the more specific term "bethulah" that technically means "virgin"? I think it is so that it could apply both appropriately to both the "near" and "far" fulfillment of the prophecy. We see the use of words in Hebrew to intentionally leave ambiguity...So in Isaiah 7:14 almah gives enough vagueness to accommodate the near fulfillment in the eighth century BC with a young woman giving birth to the far fulfillment in the first century AD with the virgin birth of Jesus.

So at the risk of being disrespectful of someone else's religion, is this a case of "Sure, Joseph...uh...God knocked me up." and whistling and averting of eyes, etc.? --Kels 17:51, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd say that's... one possible explanation out of several. ;-) --AKjeldsen 18:24, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

red link disease

This article has so much red text it's hard to read. Can we please remove about 3/4 of the links to nowhere? Say, ones to articles we are unlikely to write? human^{be in} 20:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

I got rid of some of the red text but there is a lot and so I got bored with it. God 23:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Cool, thanks... I'll have another go at it. We are unlikely to become an in-depth source on the Roman Empire, Hebrew history, or Jewish holidays, right? human^{be in} 00:39, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Synoptic gospels

The article uses the phrase "synoptic gospels" in a couple places where I think the author actually means "canonical gospels" or just "canonical books". The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark & Luke; there's one other canonical gospel (John), and lots more canonical books. --jtl^talk 19:24, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Makes sense to me. Did you fix it? human^{be in} 20:26, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

The synoptics (same view) are yes, Matthew, Mark and Luke (NOT Lucas M^cCain, that'd be the Rifleman, the one with the oh-so-cute son, ahem...anyway)>These focus on Jesus as the miracle Man. John's POV is that of having Jesus being God incarnate, starting out with "the Word" (logos), that was with god, was god the same made all things with god etc. culminating with John 1:14 "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

~~ CЯacke® 20:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Cracker, have you bin drinkin'? I once won a muffin by knowing "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John". Yes, I have bin drinkin' human^{be in} 21:16, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

John is a pretty weird gospel, as gospels go. He doesn't even mention the tearing of the Temple veil~during the crucifixion, which is, like, really strange. (For the record, I, too, have bin drinkin'. Not much, though.) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:14, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

this article raises good points, but it fails to aknowledge any form of rational faith. And yes, faith can be rational. The small details of Christ's death only matter to those who would like to pick apart the issue. The small details were probably changed to make the texts more appealing to certain groups. Certain iniquities in the stories dont dispel the greater meaning that they have. ---- Before I move on to this next bit, I would like to say that I am a Liberal Presbyterian from Texas, and am in no way biased against non christian groups, I just believe that christian views expressed here should be the ones that arent specific to a certain group of christians ---- Here are some things the article got wrong ---- Christ was not just sacrificed for the original sin, he was sacrificed to absolve all of our sins, and supercede the old laws with a new law-- Grace. ---- In Matthew, Jesus does indeed promise to bring the fire and sword, but later in Luke, he preaches the good news of Gods enduring love. The bible contradicts itself, it was written by many people with many Ideas, just because someone says one thing doesnt mean that it is true for everyone. Proverbs tells obese people to cut their throats, and Leviticus tells us to stone those who wear mixed fabrics. ---- Pilate was only responding to the threat of mob violence when he allowed Jesus to be crucified, he believed that Jesus had done no wrong (Matthew 27:23), so why should he be reluctant to hand Jesus's body over to mourners? ---- In all of the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea, who may or may not have been a jew, is specified as the one who asks for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-8) shortly after he dies. Joseph was rich, and he could have bribed Pilate, or just used his influence as a member of the council that condemned Jesus to get it. If Joseph did indeed ask for the body at nightfall on the day Jesus died, then the carrion birds would have only begun to pick at his body, if at all, and other scavengers such as jackals, hyenas, and wild dogs would not have approached the soldiers guarding the bodies until after nightfall. ---- Jesus's wounds, or "Stigmata", were reportedly left open after his ressurection, but as he was already dead, that wouldnt have made much of a difference. In the story of doubting Thomas, Jesus uses these wounds to convince thomas of his ressurection. Even if Jesus wasnt omnipotent enough to see this coming, he had spent months, if not years with his disciples, and doesnt it make sense that he would've known Thomas well enough to know he may take a little extra convincing? ---- There is no doubt that the bible was tampered with in early christianity, the gathering at Nicea proves this, all of the more edgy books, true or not, were removed from the bible. But that does not change the core message. ---- I am not a prick, and can appreciate the obvious lampooning, but in order for this to be taken seriously ya'll have got to get your facts straight. Next time, talk about the corruption of the idea of Jesus caused by the conservative left. ---- As Rufus the Thirteenth apostle (DOGMA) said "the only thing jesus gets pissed about is all the shit that gets carried out in his name, wars, genocide, televangelists etc. etc." --24.242.55.144 19:33, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

How can faith be rational?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 04:09, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

The entire field of Apologetics is devoted to that question, but usually stated as "how can faith be irrational"--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 11:45, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Once that word (faith) is used, all credibility flies out of the window. Susan_{... purrrrrr ...} 11:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Did Jesus Actually Die on the Cross?

I watched an interesting documentary on the BBC earlier in the year which seems to cast some doubt on that. Someone posted it on Youtube (in 6 parts), so have a look and see what you think:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXfklw6MbdA - part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=5i6OLeo0YYE - part 2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfHQacTOO88 - part 3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=1k8xld21MHQ - part 4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=BIEwxd0KObw - part 5 http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmGcDH4ixQk - part 6

from PZ myers blog

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/conservapdia_declares_their_ar.php #63

I have just been to Rationalwiki to see what they had to say in their entry on "Jesus Christ". Most of it is just reiterating what the gospels are saying. It has absolutely nothing to say on the argument that Jesus never actually existed. That is truly pathetic.

Posted by: silkworm | May 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Archy

Who's PZ Myers? Does he not know how a wiki works? He can come and take out an account and edit the article his own damn self.PFoster 10:57, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't PZ Myers who said that, but some geezer named silkworm. To paraphrase Andy Schlafly, I doubt if that is his real name... Bondurant 10:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone replied and invited him (and others) to add that material? --Kels 12:40, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Finally

Now that this is back where it belongs (JS not J), can we move Fun:Jesus back to Jesus? It was the casualty of Proxima's de-Christing binge way back when. ħuman 21:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

didn't Jesus claim to be both God and son of God (simultaneously)?

I have yet to come up with a way not to make fun of it. maybe someone can put it in the serious portion of the article. Thieh 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he made the former claim, his followers did. And regarding the second, didn't he just identify as a man, who are all "sons of god"? And, you know, the followers did the rest... ħuman 23:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus as Buddhist guru?

Probably it's already been mentioned, but the BBC did a fascinating documentary on it a couple of years ago (it was obviously filled with conjecture and suppositions). Anyway, if we could find the relevant articles and whatnot, would it merit it's own page or an additional section on here? ^{— Unsigned, by: Moiph / talk / contribs}

I suppose it depends on how much are you planning to extract from the articles. Have you ever seen Ken

's pet articles? That's how we define tl;dr (too long; didn't read) to give you rough ideas. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a definite problem. I got halfway through a rough draft on Word and realized I'd taken almost two pages alone just setting out the preliminary points. Too much detail. I bored myself just proofreading it. I'll kick it around and see if there's any way to trim it a little. Moiph 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a sandbox in your user space of it? Others might notice and chime in on the talk page. ħuman 04:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Moiph 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus as Muslim Prophet?

I wanted to add something on this, but I have no idea where in the article would be appropriate... if anyone decides to do it while I am sleeping, they call him Isa and revere and quote him almost as much as Muhammed (I know that some important points of Islamic law are based on Jesus' teachings) Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar grammar grammar - for the love of Jesus!

I have changed all instances of Jesus' to Jesus's.

Just because a name or noun ends with an "s", it does NOT mean you can denote possession simply by adding an apostrophe. The lone apostrophe can only be used if the word has already had an "s" added to create a plural.

Speciationspeed. DeltaStar 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is true. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually authorities differ on this. Wikipedia offers both possibilities for example.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall trot out on a limb and claim that you cannot find any authoritative source (i.e., an official grammar guide) stating that the apostrophe without "s" is permissible for the singular possessives. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bob, Wikpedia's apostrophe article is a better example as it explicitly mentions Jesus and also gives some authorative references to disabuse ListenerX.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Lily didn't see your post. Was too eager to get the Times on. :-) --Bob^{Not Jim} 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Try this from the times which covers WP's third possibility.

• apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg, Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final “s” is soft, use the “s” apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency; plurals follow normal form, as Lehman Brothers' loss etc.

--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From the style guide in question: but note Jesus's (not Jesus') parables. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But that wasn't your challenge. You wrote: I shall trot out on a limb and claim that you cannot find any authoritative source (i.e., an official grammar guide) stating that the apostrophe without "s" is permissible for the singular possessives. Does the Times Style guide allow the apostrophe without an "s" in some cases?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote that I was thinking of a general rule rather than exceptions, like on the Wikipedia page. I was not aware of these exceptions, which according to the Vanderbilt guide only apply when writing for newspapers (where the need to save letters is more acute). ListenerX^TalkerX 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hart's Rules says Jesus' is an "accepted liturgical archaism". And The Times seems to be the exception for insisting on Jesus's.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vanderbilt only allows the "traditional" exceptions of "Jesus'" and "Moses'" in non-newspaper writing. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So you now no longer agree with the statement: The lone apostrophe can only be used if the word has already had an "s" added to create a plural. ? --Bob^{Not Jim} 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, "Jesus'" sounds wrong and "Jesus's" looks wrong. ħuman 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We could save a lot of grief by changing it to "life of Jesus", "death of Jesus", etc. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. There are three options favored by various authorities:

1. Dawkins's Jesus's
2. Dawkins' Jesus'
3. Dawkins' Jesus's

Wikipedia's solution is to accept all of them but ask that each individual article use them consistently. It would seems to be reasonable for us to do the same.
Incidentally it seems to be that the problem stems from two conflicting desires: the wish to have the spelling/grammar reflect the pronunciation in some way, and the wish to make the "rule" consistent in all cases. Given this, there is no solution which is going to leave everybody happy.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going with option (1) there, since by any account "Jesus'" is a tolerated exception rather than any application of a rule. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before: many many times & agreed to differ. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 06:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Number 1, every time. It's grammatically correct!. I do understand why people write things like PZ Myers' blog instead of PZ Myers's blog, as the temptation is there to say (and I'm writing phonetically here) PZ Myers blog, although one should actually say PZ Myerses blog. However, this then carries over to nouns/words where it does not make sense to do this; no one would say Jesus sandals or Mister Ross car, they would of course say Jesuses sandals and Mister Rosses car, so why write it Jesus' sandals or Mr Ross' car?^{— Unsigned, by: DeltaStar / talk / contribs}

(note: I am fully aware that "Jesus sandals" is a popular term when used as a noun to describe the footwear favoured by German tourists) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical conclusion

I see my changes have been reverted until we reach a conclusion, given all that has been said above, I would like to revert back to my edit of Jesus's, for the following reasons:

1. It makes me cringe every time I see Jesus'.
2. No one says "Jesus life", everyone says "Jesuses life".

So if there's no objections I will roll it back. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, authorities differ. Personally I'm happy wither either version as long as it's consistent within the article.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus and his miraculous abilities

I wonder, since Jesus is supposedly the worldly incarnation of God (and, somehow, simultaneously his son), and is therefore presumably omnipotent, could Jesus create pornography so sublime that even he could not resist the urge to spontaneously masturbate to it? 192.173.40.18 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nazareth

There's nothing here discussing whether Nazareth existed an actual settlement at the time of Jesus; and if it did so whether the town described in the Bibe (built on a hill with a cliff) is the same as the town that is presently known as Nazareth. - Ted 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3 Days

So, I'm tempted to delete the page with the message, "don't worry, it will be back in 3 days." ... Yeah, I know, lame joke. But I don't want to screw with the records and logs or anything. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh... ħuman 00:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus

It only takes one nail to put up the picture.SuperAtheist (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you could totally hang Jesus up with only one nail... he just would be all crooked and stuff. And who wants a crooked god stapled to an outdoor fixture? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Crucifixion method

I've read somewhere and/or seen on a TV documentary (can't remember what/where) that crucifixion victims were suspended by nails through their wrists. This way the weight of a human is capable of being borne by the bones forming the base of the palm. With a nail through the palm itself, there is nothing but soft tissue (i.e. not bone) to hold up the entire human weight - a no no.

This is why so-called stigmata on the palms of the hand probably discounts a direct connection with Jesus - blood would ooze from the wrists for the latter.

The idea was that the victim would have to alternate between weight-bearing on the foot nail (agonizing, but capable of a full breath) or the wrist nails (slightly less agonizing, but less easy to breathe). Ah, the Romans, lovely people. ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.193.117.153 / talk / contribs}

Arguing about where stigmata appear is like arguing about the orbital direction of the celestial teapot.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, lol, great footnote

"Alternatively Christians may assume that God miraculously created a complete half set of chromosomes including an extra Y chromosome specially for Jesus or that Jesus was miraculously enabled to be male despite having only X chromosomes. Using Occam’s razor which is more likely?

• Is it more likely that all these unprecedented miracles happened?
• Is it more likely that some man or other did –you know what- to Mary and nine months later Jesus was born?"

Who knows if this is useful or not? Equestrian (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it is more likely that any human is conceived naturally, the article says it is "logical" (through reductio ad absurdum no less) that Jesus was conceived naturally, which to me would mean definitely without any possible alternative mechanisms. However, once you are willing to accept the proposition that Jesus was conceived by a miracle there are no end to things that are now logically possible. - π 09:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

C'mon

Christianity may be a load of nonsense but you've got to admit, Jesus was an alright guy. Come to think of it, he's the only socialist apart from Oscar Wilde I have any time for. Even Dawkins admits that J-Man was "a moral genius" and that "the Church would do well to pay more attention to his teachings". I've got to agree with him there. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he was a good guy? The gospels were made up many many years after his death. Apart from the fact that he probably lived and died we have almost no other real firm evidence about him.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the whole "moral wretches can kiss my boots and all will be forgiven" thing strikes a sour note with many people. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus was by no means condescending. He was very humble and self-effacing. He merely believed that he was the Son of God because that's what he'd been raised believing because all of his family thought he actually was the Messiah as a result of his mother's lie. Mary, being the naive and innocent girl that she was, couldn't come to terms with the fact that she had been violated by a Roman soldier. It's perfectly logical that the poor girl retreated into a fantasy world and the whole ghastly affair went too far. She probably realised it before the end and odds are Jesus did too. I just feel sorry for Joseph. Nevertheless I still think that although some fucked up shit has been done in the name of Christianity, as a religion it's done more good for the world than bad, which is more than can be said for Islam. Could just be pathetic pangs of Catholic guilt from my upbringing though. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to get on the phone to the President of History, quick if you can substantiate that that is exactly how it was. ^sshole 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

as a religion it's done more good for the world than bad, which is more than can be said for Islam. All I can say is "uh-oh" to that. Blue (is useful) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) "more than can be said for Islam" ¿¿WTF?? You would deny the benefit of requiring many millions of people to wash five times daily? Pls define how you quantify "more good than bad." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How can one fail to find the irony in the fact that Muslims consider homosexuals perverts despite the fact that Muhammed was by all accounts a paedophile? Not to mention a rapist, a looter, a sociopath and probably a schizophrenic and yet a large percentage of the world's population look to him as a source of guidance and inspiration. What could be more disturbing than that? I imagine that washing five times a day must be incredibly bad for one's skin, stripping it of its natural defences, not to mention getting in the way of more productive activities. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: Go fuck yourself. Long answer: Read the fucking Bible. Blue (is useful) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Way ahead of you, I'm a fucking fantastic lover. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And Hobbits are small people with furry feet who live in the Shire. Oh! there's a Mad hatter who lives in Wonderland. And Harry Potter's a magician. 00:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have often wondered where pulling general notions out of one's imagination, about millions of real people, might lead. Thanks to present company, the picture is becoming clearer. Do you actually know any people who have submitted to Islam? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, Let Them Eat Cake seems to have a positive valuation of Christianity, because he is likely from a pro-Christian area, such as the USA, or Europe. If he had been brought up in an Islamic area, he may well be calling that "Islam has done a lot of positive things for the world, unlike Christianity." As for Jesus, in the Gospel of John he was not humble, he was boastful. "Go out and tell all what you have seen here". Yeah, real humble guy there. Fact is, that the Gospels were written predominately from Jews located in Greece, and the Gospels are written in Greek mythological style. Honestly, there is possible doubt that he even actually existed, as all the sources that "confirm" his life and or death are early Christian apologists, and don't really actually say much in regards to his life at all. The whole "Jesus was actually there, and the Romans suppressed his existence" denies the known existence of numerous messiahs that are well documented to have existed in Judea/Israel contemporaneously. It requires the Romans to have acknowledged Jesus's special status as a God-King, and fear it enough to that they would hide it. Which is silly, because again, there were tons of messiahs at that time. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about the fig tree. Think of the figs! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Brian! Blue (is useful) 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a point that if I came from an Islamic area I might well say that Islam had done more good for the world than bad but the fact is, I wasn't, therefore I'm able to view it from an objective position. If you read Understanding Muhammed by Dr. Ali Sina, himself a former Muslim, you'll find pretty hardcore evidence that backs up what I'm saying. I'll admit that at times Jesus did seem boastful but I think he was largely trying to promote his cause because he thought it would save people's souls, again as a result of his mother's lie, the disturbing notion being that his mother probably believed it herself. I find it funny how left-wingers always like Islam but dislike Christianity. Decadent Western guilt perhaps? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? Some problems here I think.

• You have no idea if Jesus said any of the words that the writers of the New Testament put in his mouth. They seem to have sometimes invented some nice words for him, but so what?
• WTF with left-wingers always like Islam but dislike Christianity They are equally nutty in my opinion. Which one of them has spilt the most blood is an open question I'd say.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LTEC, please read at least the Wikipedia article on historical Jesus. Most likely (real) Jesus never thought he was the son of god. Blue (pester) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If he even existed. Тy^Talk. 12:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

While medieval European Christians were suppressing science, destroying ancient texts, mutilating and burning heretics, expelling Jews and generally going backwards, Islam was promoting science and mathematics and was tolerant of both Jews and Christians within its society. Current problems with Islam are largely down to Wahabbism a minority extremist grouping; most Muslims are just as likeable and pleasant people as most Christians are. Christianity has had its own violent extremists.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern Christianity is indeed much less violent than Islam, but that's not a quality which it always possessed or developed on its own. Christianity was simply tamed by secularization and modernization, it lost its position as the dominant player in setting moral standards, and had to conform to those set up by civil society at large or risk marginalization. It's the tragedy of the Islamic world that it never experienced something like the Age of Enlightenment, some major social movement that affirmed the role of reason against faith, a philosophical revolution. Instead, clerics and rulers alike have been able to cling to the backward doctrines cementing their power. They've been fostering their very own victimization myth as a tool to rally the people behind them, and fundamentalist religion is a key factor in promoting this mindset. They're trying to turn the understandeable dissatisfaction of the people against strawman targets, so they won't have to account for their own role in the ongoing decay of the Islamic world. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the wake of the North African revolutions, whether or not these unholy alliances will persist or if a new social movement can finally not just achieve political freedom, but also social progress. Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but that's an important point. Röstigraben (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a very important point indeed. An Age of Enlightenment is just what Islamic areas like the Middle East need. They're fundementally stuck in the Dark Ages which is why abhorrent customs such as Shariah Law exist. Most Muslims I've met are perfectly nice people but having researched the religion itself I can understand why it has a negative effect on many people. A religion that dominates such a large portion of a person's life can't be healthy. Not only that but "Allah" makes the Christian God seem like a humanitarian. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. But in case you're not, please see Examples of God personally killing people. Blue (is useful) 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not trolling, I'm merely trying to emphasise that Allah is so evil that he makes even the sociopathic God of the Old Testament look like a pretty nice guy. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The "left-wingers always like Islam but not Christianity" point has some degree of validity to it, mostly that some left-wingers are willing to overlook certain disagreeable features of Islam, while harping on the same issues when they show up in Christianity. This is directly analogous to how right-wingers are willing to overlook disagreeable features of Christianity while highlighting the same features in Islam. In the right-wingers' case, this is mostly done because Christianity is not practiced by the Big Evil Invading Hordes, while in the left-wingers' case it is done because Islam is not practiced by the particular Big Evil Imperialistic Oppressors to which those left-wingers are most opposed (the Euston Manifesto makes light of that phenomenon).

I also have to agree that Christianity (at least in most of its forms) is milder than Islam due to its rejection of the "letter of the law" in favor of the spirit. Islam's social rules are far more concrete. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(paraphrasing some) "Growing up without Islam lets me view it objectively!" Yes, but apparently, you don't understand that growing up in a Christian-dominated society means you cannot judge Christianity objectively. Thus the point of me bringing up the point that if you were raised in Islamic countries you would possibly have a opposite viewpoint to your current one. "Abhorrent customs such as Shariah Law" ... yet no one ever calls "Halakha Law" abhorrent, or anything like that, even though it calls for death to homosexuals, rape victims and dishonoring your mother or father. The idea that the Age of Enlightenment is all that is necessary for Muslims to catch up to our secular society is lunacy... how long after the Age of Enlightenment was it before slavery in the US was abolished, before women were allowed to vote, hell, before women were even considered something other than property? Theocratic Christian nations aren't any better than theocratic Islamic nations. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to view any religion objectively if you had one yourself. As, pretty much by definition, all religions are in opposition to each other. If you're Muslim, you'll see Christianity as just wrong, and that will colour your judgment regardless of how objective you try to be. In theory, that would make atheists the best placed to objectively look at religion but they think all of them are wrong - so are equally coloured in their view (but at least their coloured equally!). ^sshole 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that we are far too nice to Hinduism and Sikhism here, and we need to get to work on that. Тy^Talk. 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we work too hard to make Christianity and Islam different. I'd say that they've got more points of similarity than difference. They've got the same book, more or less the same god with the same violent attitudes, the same prophets. I agree that they have diverged somewhat but it's like protestantism and Catholicism they are diverging too. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) As, pretty much by definition, all religions are in opposition to each other. Most strands of paganism are not particularly in opposition to any other religion. The Roman pagans followed their relative non-opposition to Christianity right to their doom. The Norse pagans thought it perfectly all right to pray to YHVH if Odin failed. The idea of one's religion being opposed to all other religions is largely an Abrahamic one.

...they've got the same book... I am giving you a chance to retract that statement. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. I may have been a Roman Catholic but that's behind me now and there are times when there's nothing I want to do so much as throw a Bible into the event horizon of a black hole with enough force to dislocate my shoulder. Halakha Law is indeed at least as abhorrent as Shariah Law and it's true that the Age of Enlightenment did not immediately fix all of society's problems but it set our ancestors on the right track and now thanks to it, the Western world lives in something resembling a civilised society. Not a perfect one by any means but one in which at least rapists, murderers and wife-beaters are punished and where people regardless of gender can marry whomsoever they chose. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were Christian or that you had religion, I said that you were raised in a pro-Christian society. If Halakha Law is as abhorrent as Sharia Law, why are people raging against how you can't be a proper American if you follow Sharia law, but don't make such claims for Halakha law? We widely regard Hasidic Jews similar to the Amish with a vague sort of "mostly harmless" sort of view. Yet Hasidic Jews hold just as strongly to Halakha law as any Muslim follows Sharia. Yet no one has a problem with them practicing their religious laws and having US courts uphold such laws so long as they do not violate secular law. Which is exactly what all contract law should permit. Your anti-Islam opinions are widely driven by the negative opinions of the wider society around you. I don't see how you can see one irrational unavoidable bias, yet not the others that are totally analogous. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Halakha Law is clearly as contemptable as Shariah Law and from what I've read should be regarded with the same hostility though I hadn't heard of it before coming here. I know quite little about the Jewish faith, or at least, not as much as I know about Islam. All the same, the Jews seem largely to be a peaceful people with strong work ethics and a wry sense of humour. I don't have a problem with Muslims, I just don't believe Islam could possibly have a positive effect on one's mental health. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on... everyone has heard about "kosher" foods, and know that Jews have a strict dietary law. And then, anyone who is raised Christian would have to have heard at some point about the crazy strict laws that the Jewish people had setup, because that's the whole purpose given for Jesus's sacrifice. "I just don't believe Islam could possibly have a positive effect on one's mental health." WTF? I'm as anti-religious as the next person, but there is nothing special about Islam that isn't shared by Christianity and Judaism. My other point has been this entire time, that people are talking crap about how "Sharia Law" is some sort of evil infectious cancer, coming to invade the US, but yet we've already had Halakha Law here for centuries, and enforced by secular law when it doesn't contradict secular law. It's like we're ok with Halakha Law only because it's been around for so long, I mean, it can't be an evil infectious cancer, because we've had it for so long! Both Sharia and Halakha law have points that conflict with secular law, and no one is ever arguing that US law should respect those points, but both of them have points that do not conflict with secular law, and refusing to enforce those provisions of religious law, because they're "evil" Sharia Law infringes upon the ability of individuals to develop contracts largely independent of US law. Scientology has courts that try people, and mete punishments, so why are only Muslim law frowned upon? Catholics must confess and perform penitence for their sins, so why are only Muslim law frowned upon? This whole "z0MG Sharia law, z0MG z0MG z0MG z0MG!!!!!one!1" freak out is frustratingly irrational. Condemn all the religions as brainwashing damage, or make a rational argument for why your "evil" religion is logically different. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh all religion is unhealthy, certainly but I consider Islam to be the most poisonous of the lot. Jews don't observe Halakha Law because like Christians, they take the nastier parts of their religion with a pinch of salt. But as we've seen all to often, Muslims are dead serious about their religion. I'm not saying that Christianity and Judaism are without their extremists. Just look at Opus Dei or Gush Emunim. I don't see why it's totally okay for Richard Dawkins to call Christanity "dangerous nonsense" (and I'm not saying that it isn't) but completely unacceptable to say anything derogatory about Islam. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• completely unacceptable to say anything derogatory about Islam.

Where do you find this weird straw man?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that in Britain, people have been arrested for saying derogatory things about Islam? Also that Geert Wilders, the wingnut Dutch politician, has been prosecuted for making such derogatory remarks? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah right. I thought the reference was to this site in particular and all "liberals" in general. I didn't realise he was talking about specific European laws. But there again ... --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jews and Halakha Law

Jews don't observe Halakha Law?! Where the hell did you get this idea from? There are plenty of practicing Jews out there. Sure not all Jews observe their laws, but many of them do. Typically, these people are regarded as "Jewish" not because the term is being applied as a religious believer, but rather because it is an ethic heritage (defined as a culture that is inherited by nurture, not inherited by nature). "Nonpracticing Muslims" are generally regarded as simply "Arabic". Now, that all said, Hasidic Jews are not viewed as an explosive cancer lying in wait, or sleeper terrorists, even though they are very strict observers of Halakha law. As well, I keep using the term "Halakha law" deliberately to point out how when you use "Sharia law" as opposed to "Islamic law" you make it sound foreign, and it riles up the us-vs-them defenses that we all have. It makes it sounds mysterious and strange, and therefore dangerous.

And the most observant Jews hold that punishments of death for various violations of their law are still actually in observance, just death penalties cannot actually be meted out as long as the Temple is fallen.

Really though, so much of this is you showing a lack of study or understanding of religions... disregarding entirely that Christians currently actively oppress homosexuals and other people who they view as sinful, and that many Jews do actually still practice their Halakha law. It's all crazy fear-mongering against Islamic people. Damn it man, treat Islam the same as Christianity, because Islam is not the most dangerous religion in the world!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're getting emotional. We're just here to debate in good faith, Eira. If I've offended you, I apologise. Christianity does indeed regard homosexuality as a sin which I don't approve of but I would remind you that many Christian priests are homosexuals and live with their male partners. They're simply not allowed to indulge in homosexual acts, the same way a heterosexual priest would not be allowed to indulge in carnal acts with women. Christianity also preaches to love the sinner and hate the sin. As far as I can see, Islam has no love for sinners, only hate. Though again, that's my understanding. I could be mistaken. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hate to nitpick, but non-Catholic priests can engage is carnal acts with a woman. Тy^Talk. 04:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Let Them Eat Cake might be referring to the really old days, before the Gregorian reform, when priests were allowed to have wives but not to copulate with them.

In most strains of Christianity, the whole "love the sinner" thing has long ago been buried under the cold hard weight of reality; Christendom just could not afford not to punish sinners. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All the same, if some released a series like "His Dark Materials" about Islam instead of Christianity there'd by outrage, panic on the streets. Remember that Salmon Rushdie book and the controversy it caused? Pathetic. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Islam has the most violent religious fascists in the present century. Whether it has the most religious fascists overall is another question.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)